MOULA BUX and another vs STATE
This criminal bail application was filed by the applicants seeking post-arrest bail on the ground of hardship, specifically citing the inordinate delay in the conclusion of their trial. The applicants had been in custody since August 24, 1998, and despite a prior High Court order directing the examination of material witnesses within three months, the trial remained stagnant. The core legal question was whether the prolonged incarceration of the accused, coupled with the failure to conclude the trial within a reasonable time, constituted sufficient grounds for the grant of bail, particularly when the delays were not attributable to the accused. The Court observed that the trial's lack of progress was primarily due to the non-production of the accused from jail and the absence of witnesses, rather than the fault of the accused. Relying on the principle that the right to a fair and expeditious trial must be safeguarded, the Court held that the applicants were entitled to relief. Consequently, the bail application was allowed, and the applicants were ordered to be released upon furnishing surety.
- Does the failure to conclude a trial within a reasonable time, where the delay is not attributable to the accused, constitute a valid ground for the grant of bail?
- Is the prolonged incarceration of an accused for nearly five years without trial progress a sufficient basis for bail on the ground of hardship?
ORDER
1. Bail is being sought through this application solely on the ground of hardship as the applicants are in custody since 24.8.1998 and despite directions issued by this Court while dismissing the earlier bail application on 28.3.20.01 that the material witnesses be examined within three months, the case has made no progress. We have heard M/s. Jai Jai Veshnu and Sarfraz Khan Jatoi, learned counsel for the applicants and Mr. Ali Azhar Tunio, learned Asstt. A.G. appearing on behalf of the trial Court.
2. Perusal of the diaries shows that after direction of this Court, charge was framed by the trial Court on 5.10.2001. Process was issued for witnesses but for one or the other reason the trial could not make progress. As pointed out by the learned Asstt. A.G. on 18.2.2002 an adjournment was filed by the advocate for the accused when three witnesses were in attendance. This appears to be the only adjournment allowed on account of the application filed on behalf of the accused. On another occasion the complainant alone was present and other witnesses were not in attendance therefore, the adjournment on that day shall not go to the discredit of the accused.
3. During the proceedings of this bail application, report was called for from the trial Court which was furnished by him accordingly. It was stated that the trial could not make progress mostly because of non-production of accused or absence of the witnesses. The latest report dated 25.4.2003 also indicates the same position. On being questioned learned Asstt. A.G. was not able to state that there are other cases against the applicants. The applicants have admittedly remained in jail for a period of 4 years and 9 months. Only one judgment was sought by them as discussed above. The Honourable Supreme Court has observed in Saeed Mehdi's case 2002 S.C.M.R. 282 that right to fair and expeditious trial of an accused is to be safeguarded.
4. Learned counsel relied upon the case of Muhammad Aslam v. The State (1999 S.C.M.R. 2147) and Ashkok v. The State (1997 S.C.M.R. 436) wherein despite directions of the High Court for examining the witnesses, no progress was made. We are of the view that in the instant case the direction of this Court could not be complied with for no fault on the part of trial Court is evident from its report mentioned above. The main reasons were non-production of accused from jail and absence of the witnesses. These authorities also apply to the instant case. In view of the above discussion, we are convinced that on the ground of hardship, the applicants deserve bail. The application is allowed. Applicants be released on bail on furnishing surety in the sum of Rs. 400,000/- each and executing P.R. bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of trial Court.
Cited by 2 cases
- WAZIR ALI Versus The State 2005 PLD 201
- Wazir Ali vs The State K.L.R. 2005 Criminal Cases 233