2009 PLP 73 (YLR)

Bail has been sought on the ground of non-compliance of orders of this Court, dated 22-3-2000, whereby while declining the bail to the present applicant, learned trial Court was directed to conclude the trial within a period of four months. Grievance of the applicant is that the applicant, who is a woman, is behind the bars since 1st March, 1999. The prosecution has not recorded evidence. It is stated that after expiry of four months period another bail application was moved before the trial Court, same was rejected on 11-6-2001 on the ground, inter alia, that the Court is seized of large number of cases and on account of pre-election duties the matter could not be proceeded with. Learned counsel for the applicant contends that the delay alone in proceeding with the case is sufficient ground to extend benefit of bail as the law does not provide any compensation to a person, who ultimately is found innocent after conclusion of the trial but can always be committed to undergo sentence if found guilty of the offence. In support of his contentions he has placed reliance on the case of Muhammad Aslam v. The State (1999 SCMR 2147), Imran Amin v. The State (2002 MLD 1416), Liaquat Ali v. The State (2000 PCr.LJ 1317) and orders passed in Bail Application No. 1392 of 2001 Umer Hayat v. The State and bail application No. 369 of 2001 Muhammad Anwar v. The State of various Division Benches of this Court. Learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the State contends that some fix time may be given for complying with the directions of this Court and that in cases of Narcotic substance where the applicant is charged under section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 entailing capital punishment, benefit of bail should not be extended in view of section 51 of the Act. He supports his arguments by referring the case of Gul Said v. The State (2002 P.Cr.LJ 1680). We have heard the arguments and perused the record. From the record it appears that the directions for recording the evidence were given by this Court while disposing of the bail application No. 106 of 2000 on 22-3-2000, trial Court was directed to conclude the trial within a period of four months and in the alternate the important witnesses may be examined by that date, whereafter the applicant would be at liberty to repeat the bail application, which could be disposed of strictly in accordance with law. It further appears that almost after seven months from the date of the orders passed in the above referred bail application by this Court, the applicant moved another bail application before the learned trial Court on the ground of non-compliance with the order of this Court. Same was dismissed on 11-6-2001 by the learned trial Court. Intervening bail application was filed before this Court, which was dismissed for non-prosecution on 8-1-2001 whereafter listed bail application was filed on 23rd September, 2002. From the case diary produced by the applicant it appears that the delay apparently has been caused by the prosecution. On one date i.e., on 24-5-2000 the applicant sought an adjournment, that too on the ground that one of the co-accused was not produced and the witnesses, it was requested, be examined in presence of both the accused. Since the directions were issued by this Court in earlier bail application, it appears that the prosecution has not taken serious note of the directions of this Court in facilitating the conclusion of trial. From the diary, produced upto 2nd March, 2002 no witness appears to have been examined in the case. In the case reported as Liaquat Ali v. The State (2000 PCr.LJ 1317) decided by a Division Bench of which one of the member was one of us, (namely, Mushir Alam, J.) in a case of trial of Narcotic Substance, where Charas 2050 grams and one Kilogram of Opium was recovered, despite directions issued by the Division Bench, in the similar nature were not complied with the accused was extended benefit of bail. In somewhat similar circumstances bail was extended in the cases of Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 by another Division Bench in a recent case reported in 2002 MLD 1416. Likewise is the position in the unreported orders placed on record by the learned counsel for the applicant. In the instant case we find that the applicant is facing trial and languishing in jail since 1st, March, 1999 without being tried for the offence entailing capital punishment. It is legitimate right of every accused person that his case may be disposed of expeditiously. This Court is not unmindful of the fact that the learned subordinate Courts are overburdened, as pointed out by the learned Addl. A/G. but giving that premium to the learned subordinate Courts it may be observed that the directions to record the evidence of some witnesses were given by this Court vide order dated 22nd March 2000. Such exercise was to be carried out within a period of four months and despite lapse of over two years not a single witness appears to have been examined, which shows the lack of interest by the prosecution to bring home the guilt of the accused. In such circumstances, we are inclined to extend bail to the applicant, however, subject to furnishing two solvent sureties, in the sum of Rs. 500,000 each and P.R.. bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court. Needless to say in case concession of bail is misused learned trial Court may cancel the bail. H.B.T./H-25/K Bail granted.