ZAR WALI vs THE STATE
This matter comes before the High Court on a post-arrest bail application filed by an accused facing trial under Section 395/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for dacoity. The core legal question is whether the statutory delay in the conclusion of the trial, caused by the failure of jail authorities to produce the accused and the inability of the trial Court to examine remaining witnesses despite earlier directions, warrants the grant of bail in a heinous offence. The Court held that an accused cannot be incarcerated for an indefinite period without trial progress simply because the charged offence is heinous, and prolonged delay attributable to the prosecution and jail authorities entitles the accused to bail. The key principle laid down is that the constitutional right to a speedy trial overrides the gravity of the offence when systemic delays result in prolonged detention without substantial trial progress.
- Whether prolonged delay in the conclusion of a trial entitles an accused to post-arrest bail in a heinous offence?
- Does the failure of jail authorities to produce the accused for trial constitute a valid ground for granting bail?
- Can an accused be kept behind bars for an indefinite period without trial progress?
- Section 395, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 34, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
1. ' The applicant is facing trial in the Court of IIIrd Additional Sessions Judge, Karachi South in a case under section 395/34, P.P.C., in Crime No,161 of 2000 of Police Station Clifton.
2. ' Briefly stated the facts of this case are that on 3-7-2000 at 20-45 hours complainant Haji Nazeer Ahmed was available in his house alongwith Abdul Samad, Kashif, Dadabhoy and his other family members. Four bandits entered their house. On gun-point they robbed Golden Ornaments, Foreign Currency, Pak. Currency and other articles. The features of the culprits were given in the F.I.R.
3. ' At present the case is pending trial in the aforesaid Court. The accused was arrested on 24-7- 2000 and since then he is in custody.
4. ' It is contended by learned counsel that the charge in this case was framed on 26-2-2001 and thereafter the prosecution has examined only one witness. Previously bail application was moved in this Court which was decided by me on 28-6-2002 with the directions to trial Court to examine the remaining witnesses within shortest possible time. It is submitted that not a single witness has been examined by the trial Court after passing of aforesaid order. The case diaries indicate that accused are not being produced by jail authorities despite the fact that show-cause notices have been issued to jail authorities by the trial Court time and again. Eleven prosecution witnesses are yet to be examined and conclusion of trial is not in sight in near future.
5. ' Mr. Fazlur Rehman Awan learned counsel appearing for State has conceded to the bail plea of accused on the ground of delay as the trial Court has failed to examine a single witness after 28-6- 2002 despite the directions of this Court.
6. ' Perusal of record shows that previous Criminal Bail Application No,352 of 2002 was not pressed and the directions were given to trial Court to examine the remaining witnesses within shortest possible time but unfortunately the trial Court has not been able to examine a single witness for the last about nine months. The case diaries have been perused which demonstrate that the accused are not being produced by the jail authorities, although time and again thow-cause notices have been issued against jail authorities. Eleven witnesses are yet to be examined by the prosecution. He is in custody for the last about 32 months.
7. ' In this view of the matter, the conclusion of trial is not in sight in near future and this state of affairs on the part of the Courts and the jail authorities is deplorable. Although, this is an heinous offence but nevertheless, the people cannot be kept behind the bars for indefinite period without any progress in the case.
8. ' Mr. Fazlur Rehman Awan learned counsel for State has conceded to the bail plea of accused. The delay on the part of the prosecution is regrettable and makes the accused entitle for concession of bail.
9. ' Accordingly, the accused is granted bail on furnishing two sureties in the sum of Rs,1,00,000 (Rupees one lac each) and P.R. Bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court.
Cited by 2 cases
- Syed HASNAIN RAZA ZAIDI vs THE STATE 2012 YLR 1496
- WAZIR ALI Versus The State 2005 PLD 201