2003 P Cr (PLP)

(3) In the case of Eijaz Ahmed v. The State 1994 SCMR 658, interim bail which had been earlier granted was confirmed on the ground that not a single witness had been examined during the last six months, in spite of directions. (4) In the case of Khalid v. The State 1994 PCr.LJ 12, bail was granted on the grounds that the petitioner was behind bar for the last two and half years and there did not seem to be any reason for conclusion of the trial in the near future. The Court while granting bail relied on. the case of Riasat Ali v. Ghulam Muhammad PLD 1968 SC 353, Riasat Ali and others v. The State PLD 1977 SC 480, Sher Zaman v. Muhammad Azad and another 1978 SCMR 248, Barkhurdar v. Liaquat Ali PLD 1977 SC 434, Manzoor Khan v. Kameer 1972 SCMR 207, Manzoor Ahmed v. The State PLD 1972 SC 81 and Muhammad Sadiq v. Muhammad Shafi 1973 SCMR 212. (5) In the case Ahrar Muhammad v. The State PLD 1974 SC 224, a Full Bench of Supreme Court while looking into case of the applicant observed that inordinate delay in prosecution of the case amounted to abuse of due process of law and therefore, it could be a sufficient ground for granting of bail. The case had been dragging for five years and the accused had been denied bail. They further observed, that even though, mere delay by itself was not sufficient: ground but it was also to be observed that inordinate or unjustified delay in the prosecution of case did amount to an abuse of law. If the delay was so inordinate or so scandalous or so shocking then in principle it constituted sufficient ground for granting of bail. (6) In the case of Ghulam Jilani v. The S.H.O., Police Station Gulbarg PLD 1975 Lah. 210 a Single Bench of the Lahore High Court granted bail whilst observing that inordinate delay in prosecution was considered to be a good ground. Even though it was argued that the crime was heinous in nature. Court had come to a conclusion that if bail was not granted then it would amount to an abuse of due process of law. (7) In the case of Muhammad Umar v. The State 2002 PCr.LJ 1 a Division Bench of this Court granted bail on the ground that the accused was behind bars for four and a half years. In this case the delay had occurred due to publication of proclamation in respect of co-accused who was absconding. The publication could not be done on account of paucity of funds. The Court was of the opinion that this amounted to a delay due to no fault of the accused hence bail was granted. (8) In the case of Mumtaz and 13 others v The State 1992 PCr.LJ 2325 the Court granted bail as it came to the conclusion that accused were behind bars for more than four years and trial was not likely to conclude. Hence bail on the ground of delay was granted. (9) In the case of Sher Zaman v. Muhammad Azad 1978 SCMR 248, the bail was granted as the petitioner had been languishing in jail for 28 months and the only ground was that-there was no likelihood of conclusion of the trial. (10) In the case of Riasat Ali v. The State PLD 1977 SC 480 the accused was behind bars for four years and it seemed that the trial would never end. The Court came to the conclusion that in the criminal jurisprudence an accused person is presumed to be innocent unless found guilty by a competent Court and therefore, to hold a person in custody without any prospect of commencement of the trial, amounts to an abuse of the process of the Court. Although the delay further likely to be caused in the disposal of the case due to various circumstances and in ,the absence of the availability of a Court was shocking, the Supreme Court gave finding that the Court should take immediate and effective steps for augmenting the strength of trial (11) In the case of Tariq Bashir v. The State PLD 1995 SC 34, the Honourable Supreme Court whilst considering the grant of bail held that the concession of bail is a right in bailable offences. It is a grace in the cases where imprisonment is more than 10 years. Granting of bail should be a rule and refusal an exception. (12) In the case of Muhammad Arshad v. The State 1993 PCr.LJ 2432 bail was granted to the accused as he has been in the lock up for a cumulative period of 13 months and the case was still at the initial stage. (13) In the case of Muhammad Yousif v. The State 2000 SCMR 79 bail on the ground of statutory delay was granted. This was in spite of the fact that the Honourable Supreme Court agreed that the act. of the accused was condemnable but still bail was (14) In the case of Mian Manzoor Ahmed Wattoo 2000 SCMR 107, bail was granted on medical ground and the Court observed that the object of criminal prosecution was not to punish the accused for the offence alleged against him but to make him face the trial and answer the criminal charges against him. (15) In the case of Bahrain v. The State 2003 PCr.LJ 73, bail was granted on the ground that fair and expeditious trial is the basic right of an individual which cannot be denied.. Despite directions of the High Court, the trial had not commenced and the charge had not been framed. Going on this analogy it would not be difficult to observe, how long the entire trial would take. The hardship suffered by the accused cannot be overlooked. Bail was accordingly granted. (16) In the case of Abdul Hameed v. The State 2003 MLD 19, bail was granted whilst, observing that criminal cases specially should be disposed of without unnecessary delay. Delay causes erosion of public confidence in the judicial system and also creates a sense of helplessness and despair and feeling of frustration and anguish. Bail was granted. (17) In the case of Muhammad Aslam v. The State 1999 SCMR 2147, bail was granted as the trial was not completed in spite of direction being given and the prosecution was unable to give any 'reasonable explanation for non-compliance. (18) In the case of Haq Nawaz v: The State 2002 MLD 493 a Division Bench of this Court had granted bail on the ground of statutory delay. (19) In the case of Anwar Ali and others v. The State 2002 PCr.LJ 186 a Full Bench of this Court was of the opinion (on the basis of 2 is to 1), that bail can be granted even in narcotic cases where hardship can be shown. In this case all three Judges have relied extensively on case-laws. (20) In the case of Fida Hussain v. The State PLD 2002 SC 46, a Full Bench of the Honourable Supreme Court whilst looking at all the case-laws available on the subject has given a finding that the petitioner would be entitled to grant of bail as he cannot be detained in jail for an indefinite period for the act of the Court. No person should suffer due to an action that was not attributed to the accused. Based upon the above observations of the Honourable Supreme Court as well as. the High Court, it is clear that the following principles emerged:-- (1) Bail is a right in a bailable case and grace and concession in a non-bailable offence. (2) In criminal proceedings according to jurisprudence of this country, a person is presumed innocent unless proved guilty. (3) That in criminal matters, Courts should try and dispose case as early as possible as delay is detrimental to the accused. (4) That the concession of bail on grounds of delay should be considered by Courts. It is established that the reason for delay cannot be attributed to the accused. (5) That the Courts whilst considering delay have even considered the past efficiency of the trial Court and have accordingly computed how long it would take in the future to complete the trial. Besides the above it would be appropriate to observe that hardship can also be looked into by Courts considering the age of the accused. His physical condition and the condition of the jails as it stands today. If a young man is incarcerated inside for the first time keeping in view they abnormal conditions prevailing inside the jail, the delay in disposing oft his matter would have a tremendous psychological impact on him. If the objective of the law was to punish a person by keeping him behind bars then it should also be kept in mind that when the person comes out he may have become a hardened criminal. The Superior Courts have also held and observed that the proceedings that take place before the trial Court continue on the presumption that the person is innocent and he has to face trial and answer questions. The burden is upon the prosecution to prove his guilt. The question here is what happens if he is found innocent. Who would account for his being locked up for months and years. When a person is convicted he gets the benefit of section 382-B but what happens when he is acquitted therefore, keeping in mind all the above factors and the various judgments being given from time to time bail should be granted in cases of hardships, if some of the principles mentioned above are applicable. I am extremely grateful to the kind assistance provided to me by Mr. Ali Azhar Tunio, learned Assistant Advocate-General. I have carefully considered the grounds raised by the learned counsel for the parties, the material brought on record and assessed the case diaries. The main ground urged before me is of hardship. I have noted from the files that there are other substantial grounds urged by the counsel for the applicants which could be considered for the purpose of, granting of bail. Even though these grounds have been taken in the application for bail, some of. them have been substantiated by other documentary evidence. In the cases at hand learned counsel has produced certified copies of case diaries to substantiate the stand that case has, not been proceeded with due to no fault of the applicants. I have discussed in detail the observations of the Honourable Supreme Court at length. It would be good enough for granting of bail. Accordingly bail is granted in the sum of Rs.200,000 each and P.R. Bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of trial Court. H.B.T./S-301/K Bail granted.