GHULAM ALI MALGHANI vs THE STATE
This matter concerns a bail application filed by an accused person facing trial for murder before the Court of 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Jacobabad. The core legal question was whether the applicant was entitled to post-arrest bail due to the inordinate delay in the trial process. The applicant had been in continuous custody for over two years and four months, during which time only two formal witnesses had been examined. The record indicated that despite the framing of the charge in September 2002, prosecution witnesses failed to appear despite the issuance of coercive processes for over a year. The Court observed that this persistent failure of the witnesses to appear suggested an ulterior motive to keep the applicant incarcerated indefinitely. Consequently, the Court held that the applicant was entitled to the concession of bail, as the delay in trial was not attributable to the accused. The principle laid down is that where the prosecution witnesses fail to appear despite coercive measures, leading to prolonged incarceration without trial progress, the accused is entitled to bail.
- Is an accused entitled to bail when prosecution witnesses fail to appear despite the issuance of coercive processes for a prolonged period?
- Does the failure of prosecution witnesses to appear in court justify the grant of bail to an accused in custody?
ORDER
1. ' The applicant with his three co-accused is facing trial for murder of Allahando, before the Court of 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Jacobabad.
2. ' The learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is in continuous custody since last two years, four months and 20 days, during which period only the doctor and a formal witness corpse bearer have been examined. The learned counsel has taken me through the case diaries, which show that the charge in the case was framed on 20-9-2002 whereafter process of B.Ws. Was continuously ordered against the P.Ws. Till date with no response from the P.Ws. The counsel urges that the purpose in that is obvious and that is to cause confinement of the applicant in jail for as much time as possible. Reliance has been placed upon 2003 YLR 2029.
3. ' Mr. Muhammad Ismail Bhutto, learned counsel appearing for the State, while conceding to prayer, has further stated that all the private witnesses have failed to respond to the Court process.
4. ' The case diaries show that the coercive process of B.Ws. Was issued against the P.Ws. For more than a year. This conduct of the P.Ws. Is indicative of their ulterior motive, to- see the applicant/accused behind the bars. The reported decision supports the applicant's case.
5. 'In view of the above circumstances and no objection from the State Counsel, the applicant is granted bail subject to furnishing solvent surety in the sum of Rs,two hundred thousand and P.R.
6. Bond in the like amount, to the satisfaction of Additional Registrar of this Court.
7. ' Criminal Bail Application No,480 of 2003 stands disposed of.
Cited by 1 case
- SHAH MUHAMMAD Versus State 2008 PCrLJ 1596