' This is the second application for bail after arrest moved on behalf of Nasir. Jalil petitioner, who is involved in a case under sections 302, 109 and with section 34, P.P.C. Alongwith his father Abdul Jalil and brother Hassan Jalil, registered at Police Station Thingi District Vehari, on 1-8-2002 vide F.I.R.
No,145 of 2000.
' According to the F.I.R., the occurrence took place on 1-8-2002 at about 7-00 p.m. When Abdul Latif complainant and his son Yasir Latif were on their way back to their house from the school. When they reached near the house of Ashiq Hussain, Nasir Jalil-petitioner and his brother Hassan Jalil emerged all of a sudden, Hassan Jalil was armed with a dagger, while Nasir Jalil-petitioner was empty-handed. Nasir Jalil allegedly shouted that Yasir Latif should be given a taste for insulting him. He then clasped Yasir Latif from the back when Hassan Jalil accused inflicted a dagger blow in former's belly as a result of which he fell on the ground. On the hue and cry raised by the complainant, Abdul Rehman and Muhammad Rafique P.Ws. Were' attracted to the spot. They tried to catch hold of the accused, who fled away alongwith the weapon of offence. Yasir Latif was being removed to a nearby Rural Health Center who succumbed on the way.
' The motive for the offence is that on 31-7-2002, Yasir Latifdeceased had picked up a quarrel with Nasir Jalil while playing football in the school ground. Abdul Latif complainant while reporting the matter to the police at 8-30 p.m. On 1-8-2002 implicated Abdul Jalil also for being a privy to the offence.
3. During the investigation of the case, Abdul Jalil father of the petitioner was found innocent.
Accordingly, the petitioner and his brother Hassan Jalil have been cited as accused in the final report submitted by the police under section 173, Cr.P.C.
4. The earlier bail application of the petitioner was dismissed by this Court on 27-11-2002 after taking into consideration the entire facts of the case.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that after the dismissal of the earlier bail application, the petitioner's father Abdul Jalil was found innocent by the police during the investigation of the case. This development subsequent to the dismissal of the earlier bail application shows that the prosecution version is not wholly correct, as such, the case of the petitioner, who was empty handed at the time of occurrence and had not caused any injury to the deceased, also requires further probe and inquiry. He' further argued that the petitioner was arrested on 7-10-2002 but the trial has not yet concluded and in view of the controversy regarding the age of Hassan Jalil co- accused, the trial cannot be said to be within sight. Lastly, he argued that the earlier order whereby the petitioner was refused the concession of bail does not prevent this Court from allowing the concession of bail to the petitioner in the changed circumstances. He relied upon 1994 PCr.LJ 12 and PLD 2003 Kar.
393.
6. The bail application has been vehemently opposed by the learned counsel for the complainant, firstly on the ground that the earlier bail application was dismissed by this Court after taking into consideration the entire facts of the case, as such, the second bail application is not maintainable.
He further argued that the trial has commenced and now the case is fixed for prosecution evidence.
7. I have given anxious consideration to the argument put forth by the learned counsel for the parties. There is no doubt that the petitioner was empty handed at the spot and has not caused any injury to the deceased but this Court while dealing with the earlier bail application had observed that there existed reasonable grounds to believe that the petitioner/accused had actively participated in the occurrence. A perusal of the F.I.R. Shows that the motive has also been ascribed to the present petitioner, therefore, on merit, I do not feel inclined to take any exception.
8. Now, the other ground, on which, the release of the petitioner of hail has been sought. Is delay in the commencement and conclusion of the trial. The petitioner was arrested on 7-10-2002. The trial has commenced and the case is now fixed for evidence. A criminal petition is stated to have been filed before the Honourable Supreme Court of Pakistan. Which has not yet been set down in motion.
From the date of arrest of the petitioner, it cannot he said that inordinate delay has been occurred in the commencement of the trial. So this ground is also not available to the petitioner.
' Under the above discussion, this petition also fails and is hereby dismissed.