IMRAN AMIN vs THE STATE
This matter concerns a post-arrest bail application filed by an accused charged with possession of 5 kilograms of Charas under the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997. The core legal question was whether the applicant, who had been in continuous custody for approximately 33 months without the commencement of prosecution witness examinations, was entitled to bail due to the inordinate delay in the trial, despite previous dismissals of bail applications by the High Court and the Supreme Court. The Court held that the applicant was entitled to bail, noting that the trial Court had failed to comply with previous judicial directions to conclude the trial expeditiously. The Court emphasized that the law does not intend for undertrial prisoners to be detained indefinitely and that the lack of progress in the trial, combined with the prolonged incarceration, constituted sufficient grounds for relief. The key principle laid down is that where a trial is unduly delayed through no fault of the accused, and the accused has been incarcerated for a significant period without the examination of witnesses, the right to liberty outweighs the state's interest in continued detention.
- Does the failure of a trial court to conclude a case within the timeline set by the Supreme Court justify the grant of bail to an undertrial prisoner?
- Can prolonged incarceration of an accused without the examination of prosecution witnesses constitute valid grounds for bail in narcotics cases?
- Is the inability of a trial court to manage its caseload a sufficient reason to deny bail to an accused who has been in custody for an extended period?
- Section 6, Control of Narcotic Substances Act 1997
- Section 9, Control of Narcotic Substances Act 1997
ORDER
' GHULAM NABI SOOMRO, J.---The applicant Imran Amin attempts to seek his bail in case (F.I.R. No,6 of 1999 Police Station ANF-II, Karachi) under sections 6/9 of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act.
1997, pending trial before the Special Court (Control of Narcotic Substances) for Karachi Division Karachi.
2. The applicant is charged with keeping in his possession 5 K.Gs of Charas on 1-5-1999 near Namaish Chorangi, which was secured from his possession by a police party at the pointation of his co-accused.
3. His first bail application being Criminal Bail No,981 of 1999 was dismissed by this Court on merits of the case vide order, dated 3-6-2000 with directions to the trial Court to proceed with the case expeditiously. Thereafter the applicant preferred an appeal before the Hon'ble Supreme Court (bearing Criminal Petition No,43 of 2000) which was rejected by order, dated 31-82000 with directions to the trial Court to conclude the trial within next six months.
4. That the case having not concluded within the period allowed by the Supreme Court, the applicant filed his bail application in the trial Court which was rejected hence the applicant has repeated his application for bail.
5. The grounds inter alia urged before us now are that the learned trial Court in spite of the directions of this Court as well as of the Hon'ble Supreme Court has failed to make compliance of such directions. The trial Court had to conclude the case within.Six months given to it by order dated 31-8-2000 and such period ended on 1-3-2001. It was next urged that the applicant was in jail since 1-5-1999 and has remained in custody for nearly 32 months. That co-accused Haji Asif Ali and Haji Ramzan have been granted bail. Reliance was placed upon unreported decisions in identical cases, of this Court dated 26-7-2001 in Criminal Bail Applications 774 of 2001 and 832 of 2001, dated 31-7-2001 in Criminal Bail No, 565 of 2001 and dated 1-1-2002 in Criminal Bail No, 1615(K) of 2001 and other reported decisions.
6. On the other hand Mr. Shoaib M. Ashraf learned Special Prosecutor appearing for the State opposed the bail plea and submitted that the applicant was involved in drug trafficking and he is responsible for the delay in the disposal of the case. He placed reliance upon 1995 SCM R 362, 2000 SCM R 299 and 2001 PCr.LJ 331.
7. Bail in all the above-referred cases was granted as above by different benches of this Court to the accused charged identically, on the ground of delay in the disposal of their cases by the Special Court. In its reply, to explain the reasons for non-compliance of the aforesaid orders, the trial Court failed to submit any sound and worthwhile reasoning, however, it was added in its reply that the Court had some 1300 cases on its file and 300 cases contained directions for proceedings expeditiously in the cases, besides attributing some delay on the part of the applicant in conclusion of the case.
8. The applicant is in the 33rd month- of his continuous jail custody and no P.W. As been examined so far. The status of the applicant is that he is an undertrial prisoner and the charge has yet to be proved against him. There is no compensation in our judicial system for accused of crime detained for a long time or for a short time and ultimately acquitted. It is never the intention of law to keep undertrial prisoners in jail custody indefinitely.
9. In view of the above bail is granted to the applicant subject to his furnishing a solvent security in the sum of Rs,5,00,000 (Rupees five lacs only) and P.R. Bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Nazir of this Court.
10. Before parting with this case, it may be observed that in view of the above position obtaining in the trial Court, which is the singular Court for Karachi Division, its difficulty cannot be overlooked. In the circumstances. The Government would, therefore, be well-advised to increase the number of special Courts, which previously were about five in the Division.
11. A copy of this order may be delivered to Mr. Shoaib M. Ashraf learned Special Prosecutor appearing for the Anti-Narcotics Force, Pakistan for transmitting the copies of this order to all concerned.
Cited by 2 cases
- FAZAL MOULA vs The STATE 2018 YLR 1436
- ATTA ABBAS ZAIDI vs CHAIRMAN, NATIONAL ACCOUNTABILITY BUREAU (NAB) 2017 PLD Sindh 120