Noting that the exceptional circumstances of the case justified constitutional intervention, the court reiterated established principles of criminal jurisprudence, including the presumption of innocence and the principle that “parole is the rule and prison is the exception.”
According to the details of the case, Ali’s complaint was that the trial had proceeded at a “snail’s pace” through no fault of his own.
Although his bail application became final in 2024, there has been no substantial progress in the trial, with only 12 of the prosecution’s 30 witnesses questioned so far.
The court noted that Ali’s lawyer had submitted that he was a young man at the time of the alleged offence. The charges against Ali were based on circumstantial evidence, the court noted, adding that in the normal course it would not have accepted his request.
“However, the continued delay in the trial and the prolonged imprisonment shocks our judicial conscience. The petitioner was a teenager at the time of the alleged incident and has been charged with committing the murder based on circumstantial evidence. He has been in prison for a period of nine years and two months, as in this case he is not guilty of the accused to participate further. imprisonment, it is incumbent on the Court and the prosecuting authority to expedite the trial,” said her order. from the court.
While allowing Ali’s appeal, the bench said it was inclined to exercise its powers under Article 32 of the Constitution and grant him bail, subject to suitable conditions imposed by the court.
