MUHAMMAD HASHIM vs THE STATE
This matter concerns a post-arrest bail application filed by the accused, Muhammad Hashim, who was charged with murder. The primary legal question before the Court was whether the accused was entitled to bail on the grounds of inordinate delay in the conclusion of the trial, given that he had been in continuous custody for over three and a half years while only one witness had been examined since the framing of the charge. The Court observed that despite the framing of charges more than two years prior, the prosecution failed to produce witnesses despite the issuance of coercive processes. Furthermore, the State conceded the bail prayer, acknowledging that the delay was not attributable to the accused. The Court held that the prolonged incarceration without significant progress in the trial, coupled with the State's concession, constituted sufficient grounds for the grant of bail. The key principle laid down is that where the prosecution fails to proceed with the trial within a reasonable time and the delay is not caused by the accused, the right to liberty outweighs the gravity of the offense, justifying the grant of post-arrest bail.
- Does inordinate delay in the conclusion of a murder trial entitle an accused to post-arrest bail?
- Can bail be granted when the prosecution fails to produce witnesses despite the issuance of coercive processes?
- Is the concession of the State regarding trial delay a relevant factor in determining bail eligibility?
ORDER
1. ' The applicant seeks bail in a case of murder committed on 4-5-2000 within the jurisdiction of Police Station Ghouspur. The report was lodged by complainant Mehrullah Jafferi.
2. ' It is submitted by the applicant's counsel that some five accused persons were challaned in the case, three being absconders, the learned trial Court framed charge against the remaining two, namely the present applicant Muhammad Hashim and Abdul Shakoor (presently on bail), on 3-5- 2001. It is argued that there is no ocular evidence in this case and that the only evidence available with the prosecution is that of last seen; furthermore no incriminating weapon was secured froiii the applicant. Learned counsel for applicant has further submitted that the applicant's earlier bail application however stands rejected on merits vide order dated 26-12-2001 of this Court.
3. ' At the moment the bail is being pressed mainly on the ground of delay in conclusion of the trial. It is contended that during the period of about 2-1/2 years i.e. From 30-5-2001 (date of framing of charge) till today; only medical officer has been examined on 1-10-2003. It is further contended that in spite of coercive process of bailable warrants issued against the prosecution witnesses, only complainant turned up on certain dates but he was allowed to go back without recording his evidence. It is lastly urged that the applicant is in continuous custody for more than three and half years as he was arrested on 15-5-2000. Reliance is placed upon following case-law:--
(i) 2003 PCr.LJ 73; (ii) 2003 M LD 19; (iii) 2003 Cr.LJ 500; (iv) 2003 PCr.LJ 1055; (v) 2003 PCr.LJ 1659 and
(vi) 2003 YLR 3166.
4. Mr. Muhammad Ismail Bhutto learned counsel for State -conceded to the bail prayer on the ground of delay in trial and states that no adjournment was sought by the accused.
5. ' The case diary dated 30-5-2001 shows that the case of the absconding accused was bifurcated from the case of the other two accused named above and the trial Court proceeded with their case by framing charge against them. During the past period of 3/4 years only medical officer has been examined, though charge was framed more than two years back. The case diary further shows that the witnesses are not turning up inspite of issuance of coercive process of bailable warrants against them. The applicant in view of the aforesaid circumstances, his continuous detention of more than 3-1/2 years and concession from the State, appears to be entitled to bail.
6. Bail is therefore, allowed to the applicant Muhammad Hashim son of Godo, subject to his furnishing a solvent surety in the sum of Rs.200,000 (Two lac) and P.R. Bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Additional Registrar of this Court.