MOULA BUX and anothers vs THE STATE
This bail application was filed before the Sindh High Court on the grounds of hardship, specifically the prolonged incarceration of the applicants since 24-8-1998 without significant progress in the trial. Despite a previous court direction to conclude the examination of material witnesses within three months, the trial remained stagnant. The Court examined the trial diaries and reports, finding that the delay was primarily due to the non-production of the accused from jail and the absence of witnesses, rather than dilatory tactics by the applicants, who had sought only one adjournment. Relying on established principles regarding the right to a fair and expeditious trial, the Court held that the applicants' continued detention for over four years and nine months, without trial progress, constituted sufficient hardship to warrant the grant of bail. The Court affirmed that where trial delays are not attributable to the accused, the right to a speedy trial must be safeguarded, and bail should be granted to prevent indefinite incarceration.
- Does prolonged incarceration without significant progress in the trial constitute a valid ground for the grant of bail?
- Is the right to a fair and expeditious trial a sufficient basis for granting bail when trial delays are not attributable to the accused?
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 28-3-2001 that the material witnesses be examined within three months, the case has made no progress.
2. ' We have heard Messrs Jai Jai Veshnu and Sarfraz Khan Jatoi, learned counsel for the applicants and Mr. Ali Azhar Tunio, learned Assistant A.-G. Appearing on behalf of the trial Court.
3. 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 Assistant A.-G. On 18-2-2002 and 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.
4. ' 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 Assistant 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 adjournment was sought by them as discussed above. The Honourable Supreme Court has observed in Saeed Mehdi's case 2002 SCM R 282 that right to fair and expeditious trial of an accused is to be safeguarded.
5. ' Learned counsel relied upon the case of Muhammad Aslam v. The State 1999 SCM R 2147 and Ashkok v. The State 1997 SCM 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.
6. ' 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 3 cases
- MUREED vs THE STATE 2010 MLD 318
- GHULAM ABBAS alias ABASI and others vs THE STATE 2005 PLD Karachi 255
- JUWAN vs THE STATE 2005 YLR 2936