1. ' MUHAMMAD MOOSA K. LEGHARI, J.---The applicant is being tried in Sessions Case No.285 of 1997 on the charges of murder as reported vide Crime No.34 of 1997 Police Station, Kadhan.
2. ' The bail is pressed solely on the ground of hardship as according to learned counsel for the applicant, the applicant is behind bars since 1997 without any fault on his part. To support his plea for bail learned counsel has placed reliance on 2000 SCM R 107, 2004 SCM R 294 and 2005 PCr.LJ 147.
3. ' It is not denied by learned Assistant A.-G. That the applicant is behind bars since 1997, but he has disputed that there is no fault on the part, of applicant. He states that the report submitted by the trial Court adequately reveals that the delay was being caused on behalf of the defence.
4. ' The arguments addressed at the Bar have been considered and the material placed on the record has been perused, besides examining the case-law.
5. ' The applicant along with four other co-accused persons was tried and convicted vide judgment dated 8-2-2001. Under the said judgment two co-accused were awarded death sentence while the present applicant along with Asghar Ali and Ghulam Ali was sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life. The applicants challenged the judgment in Criminal Appeal No.18 of 2001. The appeal was disposed of vide judgment dated 23-10-2003 whereby the judgment of the trial Court was set aside and the case was remanded to the trial Court for recording the statements of the accused persons under section 342, Cr.P.C. On 4-12-2003 all the five accused were produced before the trial Court, but their statements could not be recorded due to absence of their Advocate. Then an application under section 350, Cr.P.C. For de novo trial was moved on behalf of the accused and the matter was adjourned to 24-1-2004 for hearing of the application. The said application was dismissed on 6-3-2004. On the same date learned counsel for the accused moved another application under section 540, Cr.P.C. And matter had to be adjourned. Ultimately the application under section 540, Cr.P.C. Was rejected on 24-7-2004. On the said date the matter was adjourned to 21-8-2004. On that date, Advocate for the accused moved an application for adjournment and the matter was adjourned to 25-9-2004 when again an application for adjournment on behalf of the accused was moved. The report reveals that on some other dates also the adjournment applications were moved on behalf of accused persons.
6. Certainly expeditious and fair trial is a fundamental right of an accused person. Inordinate delay in conclusion of trial has never been approved by superior Courts. It is well-settled that the object of criminal trial is that the accused is made to face the trial and answer the criminal charge against him. But if in a case the accused himself is apparently found to be contributing in occasioning the delay in the trial of his own case none else can be blamed for that. In such case the accused cannot be allowed to earn premium for his own faults and follies for the simple reason that a person causing delay in his own trial could not cry for being the victim of self-sustained hardship.
7. The perusal of the report of the trial Court would adequately reveal that the applicant himself was not serious in getting the trial concluded. In such circumstances, he would not be entitled to the concession pleaded by him.
8. For the foregoing reasons, neither case of hardship is made out nor the applicant is entitled to the grant of bail. Resultantly, the bail application is dismissed.