Haji MUHAMMAD SIDDIQUE And Other vs THE STATE
This petition for leave to appeal challenged a High Court judgment that set aside an order granting bail to the accused petitioners in a narcotics case. The petitioners, charged with possession of heroin and charas, were initially denied bail, but the trial court later granted it due to delays caused by the investigating officer's failure to appear for testimony. The High Court subsequently cancelled this bail. Upon review, the Supreme Court found no merit in the petition. The Court held that the non-appearance of an investigating officer, while causing trial delays, does not constitute a valid ground for granting bail to an accused, particularly when the trial is at a concluding stage. The ratio established is that the trial court's primary duty in such circumstances is to employ coercive legal processes to secure the attendance of the witness rather than granting bail as a remedy for the witness's absence. Consequently, the Supreme Court upheld the cancellation of bail and directed the trial court to expedite the proceedings by securing the investigating officer's attendance through appropriate legal measures.
- Does the non-appearance of an investigating officer at trial constitute sufficient grounds for the grant of bail to an accused?
- What is the appropriate course of action for a trial court when a witness, such as an investigating officer, fails to appear for testimony?
- Can a trial court grant bail to an accused solely on the basis of delays caused by the prosecution's failure to produce witnesses?
- Section 265-K, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
1. FAZAL ILAHI KHAN, J: --This is a petition for leave to appeal against the judgment of the High Court of Balochistan, dated 4-7-1993; whereby, the trial Court's order, dated 18-3-1993 granting bail to the accused/petitioners was set aside.
2. On a secret information a raid was conducted at the house of one Sawali which led to the recovery of whisky and some other banned material was recovered. The same raiding party comprising of Makran Scourts also raided a drug dump and after exchange of fire a huge quantity of heroin and Charas was found. On the report of Captain Shahid Bashir a member of the raiding party a case was registered against the accused on 25-10-1991. During the investigation Haji Siddique petitioner was arrested on 13-1-1992, Masood somewhere in August, 1992, Chakkar on 1-12-1991 and Jan Muhammad in June, 1992. The bail application of petitioner No.1 was dismissed on 11-2-1992 and his further application moved in the High Court was withdrawn so as to file an application under section 265-K Cr.P.C. In the trial Court. His fresh bail application was dismissed by the trial Judge as well as by the High Court mainly on the ground that challan had already been put in Court against the accused. His petition before the Supreme Court was dismissed with the direction that the proceedings shall be expedited. At the trial 5 witnesses were examined and during this period the investigating officer has been attending the Court, but subsequently absented himself and since then the case is being adjourned without any progress. Petitioners allegedly feeling frustrated applied to the trial Court for their release on bail which was granted by order, dated 18-3-1993.
3. Aggrieved by the order State made an application for cancellation of bail. A learned Judge of the High Court of Balochistan was pleased to accept the application and set aside the order granting bail to the accused/petitioners on 7-4-1993.
4. On hearing the learned counsel for the petitioners and perusal of the record we find no merit in the petition. Admittedly the trial of the accused is near completion and it is only the statement of the 1.0. Which has to be recorded. The 1.0. Had been earlier attending the Court but it appears that subsequently he avoided to make statement, therefore the case has to be adjourned. Bailable warrant of arrest has been issued against him in the sum of Rs.10,000. The trial is at the concluding stage. The learned Judge in the High Court was, therefore, justified in setting aside the bail order on facts of the present case. Non-appearance of the 1.0. Could not have been made a ground for grant of bail to the accused. In such a case it is the duty of the trial Court to take all necessary steps for securing the witness's attendance rather than to make it a ground for grant of bail. There is, therefore, no merit in this petition which is dismissed. The trial Court is, however, directed to issue process for securing the attendance of the I.O./witness at the earliest. The trial, Court shall also inform the concerned officer for taking necessary action against the investigating officer and to intimate the result to this Court within a month.