EJAZ AHMAD vs THE STATE

The petitioner sought leave to appeal against the dismissal of his bail petition by the High Court. The core legal question before the Supreme Court was whether the petitioner was entitled to bail given the significant delay in the trial proceedings. The Supreme Court observed that a period of eight months had elapsed since the petitioner's detention, and notably, no witnesses had been examined during the preceding six months. The State did not controvert the petitioner's assertion regarding the lack of progress in the trial. Consequently, the Supreme Court held that the prolonged delay in the trial, without any progress in the examination of witnesses, constituted sufficient grounds to warrant the grant of bail. The Court converted the petition into an appeal, allowed it, and confirmed the interim bail previously granted to the petitioner. The key principle laid down is that the absence of progress in trial proceedings over a substantial period, particularly regarding the examination of witnesses, justifies the grant of bail to an accused person.