2010 PLP 722 (YLR)

MRS. QAISAR IQBAL, J.

The applicant has applied for post arrest bail in Crime No.36/2002 under section 302, P.P.C. registered at Police Station Al-Falah, Karachi. Succinctly the facts leading to the case are that complainant Abdul Latif in his statement recorded under section 154, Cr.P.C. has stated that 15 days prior to registration of First Information Report the applicant has demanded loan extended to complainant's brother Abdul Razzak. On account of financial constraints the loan amount could not be returned resulted in exchange of hot words. On the fateful day at about 01-15 hours applicant approached Abdul Razzak and called him outside the house, deceased went outside, complainant heard fire-arm report as a consequence thereof, complainant, Rasool Bux s/o Fida Hussain came out of the house and found that Abdul Razzak was lying on the ground, the applicant with a pistol in his hand was running away, complainant party chased him of no avail, his dead body was shifted to Hospital for post mortem. The dead body was handed over to the complainant. The applicant was arrested, on his pointation crime weapon was secured his friend Gulab Shah connected him in the commission of crime. Learned counsel for applicant has contended that the bail plea of the applicant is urged on inordinate delay in conclusion of trial as the applicant is behind the bars from 26-3-2003, the matter could not be concluded although at one stage the applicant has moved Criminal Bail Application No.532/2008, his bail plea was declined a direction issued to the trial Court for expeditious disposal which was not complied with. Learned A.A.-G. strongly opposed the bail application contended that out of the witnesses named in the calendar of challan material witnesses have been examined bail application is not sustainable in law, liable to be dismissed. I have carefully considered the arguments advanced at Bar perused the record of the case. Undoubtedly the applicant is behind the bars from the last six years, only four prosecution witnesses so far have been examined. In case of Abdul Hameed v. The State (2003 MLD 19 Karachi), it is observed that expeditious and fair trial is a fundamental right of accused person. The intention of law is that N the Criminal case must be disposed of without unnecessary delay. It will not be difficult to comprehend that inordinate delay in imparting justice was likely to cause erosion of public confidence in the judicial system on one hand and on the other hand it was bound to create a sense of helplessness, despair feelings of frustration and anguish apart from adding to their woes and miseries. In case of Aarab alias Katoo v. The State (2005 PCr.LJ 555), it is observed that the longer period of detention without trial has been considered as a ground of hardship. Instantly the accused/applicant is in custody for a period of more than three yeas and nine months, but the trial has not yet taken the onset for no fault on the part of the accused. In case of Gullo alias Gul Hassan v. The State (2005 PCr.LJ 715), bail was granted on the ground of hardship as the accused remained in custody for a period of four years nine months concession of bail was extended. In case of Muhammad Aslam v. The State (1999 SCMR 2147), despite direction of High Court trial against the accused was not concluded by the trial Court within the specified period, the petition for leave to appeal was converted into bail, which was allowed and the accused was admitted to bail in circumstances. The rule enunciated is that the longer period of detention is good ground for hardship. In the instant case the applicant is in custody for a period of six years only four witnesses have been examined, there is no likelihood of the completion of trial in near future. The intention of law to save criminal administration of justice is lacking in the circumstances of the case because the fundamental right of the accused for fair and expeditious trial seems to have been flouted. The object of criminal prosecution is not to punish an under-trial prisoner for the offence alleged against him, the object is to allow an accused to face trial and answer the criminal charges against him as laid down by the apex Court of Judicial Hierarchy in case of Mian Manzoor Wattoo v. The State (2000 SCMR 107). Respectfully relying upon the case law referred above I am of the view that it is a fit case requiring administration of indulgence. For the foregoing reasons applicant Nazeer Ahmed alias Papu is admitted on bail upon furnishing surety in the sum of Rs.200,000 (Rupees two lac) and P.R. bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court. H.B.T./N-43/K Bail granted.