1. MUSHIR ALAM, J.---Large number of cases have come up for consideration of bail on the ground of delay and hardship. Our attention was drawn to a judgment in the case of Waseem v. The State reported in 2004 SCMR page 860 wherein briefly stating the facts appeared to be that the F.I.R. Was registered on 26-11-2000 for various offences including 302, P.P.C., for causing broad-daylight murder of a counsel who was representing rival party of the accused. Bail moved on merits was dismissed on 30-5-2002. Another bail application moved on the ground of delay was dismissed on 3-10-2002, apparently directions were issued to the trial Court to conclude the trial. It was urged before the apex Court that the petitioner was behind bar since date of F.I.R. And despite directions challan has not been submitted: The petitioner was minor of just over 15 years of age. Learned apex Court repelled the contention on the ground of delay in submission of challan in apparent non- compliance it was noted that the challan was already submitted on the directions of High Court so also ground of minority did not found favour. In number of cases before us counsel have urged that despite directions of the Court the case has not been proceeded and the applicants are languishing in jail without trial. All the cases were fixed together. Learned counsel appearing for the applicant Mr. Safdar Ali Bhutto relying upon another authority reported in the same Journal as Yaro.v. The State 2004 SCMR 864 contended that delay of more than one year prevailed upon apex Court to extend bail on such ground. He contended that it is to be seen whether the delay has occasioned on account of accused or not. Mr. Muhammad Ayaz Soomro, learned counsel appearing in some of the bail applications relying 'on the case of Moula Bux and another v. State a Division Bench Judgment reported in 2004 YLR 2765 contended that non-compliance of the order of the Court for expeditious disposal, the delay was conceded to extend bail. Mr. Muhammad Ayaz Soomro has drawn our attention to cases reported as Mumtaz and 13 others v. The State 1992 PCr.LJ 2325 to urge that two years delay was conceded to grant bail in a multiple murder case. He has also relied on Ejaz Ahmed v. State 1994 SCMR 658 where bail was granted on two years delay. In Muhammad Aslam v. The State 1999 SCMR 2147 and Ashko v. The State 1997 SCMR 436 the apex Court conceded bail in cases where the trial Court did not comply with the direction of High Court for examining the witnesses. Mr. Muhammad Daud Baloch contends the right to fair and expeditious trial of an accused is to be safeguarded as ruled by the apex Courts in the case reported as Muhammad Saeed Mehdi v.The State 2002 SCMR 282. Mr. Roshan Ali Solangi appearing in Cr.B.A. No,345/2002 contended that in his case the applicant has not caused any delay. Delay in proceeding with the case has been caused on account of complainant's conduct as he is in the habit of moving transfer applications and police papers are called by Superior Courts which has hampered the trial. He contends that where such delay is not at the instance of the applicant, the bail is conceded by the apex Court. In support of his case, reliance was piked on PLD 2002 SC 456. Mr. Safdar Ali Bhutto further contends that the bail has always been conceded by the Court on the ground of delay and hardship. According to him third proviso was added to section 497, Cr.P.C.
2. Recognizing statutory delay as a valid ground for bail, such right was later regulated by 4th proviso thereto, but such provisions.Were omitted in 1990, restored in 1994 and again omitted in 2001. He contends that even when such statutory delay were not recognized, bail on the ground of delay has always been considered by the Court provided circumstance of the cases so demand. Similar arguments were extended by Syed Aijaz Ali Shah and Miss Faiz un Nisa Channa and Mr. Qureshi. We have heard the arguments of all the learned counsel and perused record of each case.
3. Bail in non-bailable offences has always been considered by the Courts where cases for bail are made out. Courts have always adopted pragmatic approach towards interpretation of law. Law is interpreted to respond to ever changing conditions prevailing in society. The apex Court has since long recognized ground of delay as a valid ground for bail. The first case on the subject, we were able to lay hand on, is reported as Arbab Ali v. Ghulam Muhammad PLD 1968 SC 353. In the said case though the bail granted by the High Court on the ground of delay was recalled but the principle enunciated by the apex Court is the reflection of the pragmatic approach adopted in acknowledging such ground for extending benefit of bail. The observation of the Court is reproduced as follows: "Inordinate delay in prosecution of a case, if not explained by the prosecution amounting to an abuse of the process of law, can be considered as a ground for bailing out an accused person even in a murder case depending on the nature of the delay and the circumstances that have caused it. The eliminating every avoidable delay in order to bring it to a close and thus to determine the fate of an accused person while hangs in the balance as long as the proceedings do not terminate one way or the other. The prosecution cannot be permitted to enlist the Will of the Court on its side directly or indirectly in prolonging the worries and harassment of an accused person which are inevitably caused by his protracted detention without trial. Leisurely steps taken in filing the Challan, tardy and halting production of evidence or seeking of unnecessary adjournments, except those necessitated by force of circumstances must be strongly deprecated.
4. But delay in the prosecution of a case or the procrastination of the proceeding in a trial furnishing as a ground for bail have to be weighed and judged in each case on its own merits." In the case of Manzoor Khan v. The State 1972 SCMR 207, it was observed that it is not the intention of law to keep U.T.P. Including those charged with capital offence without trial for inordinate long period without satisfactory explanation or reason to justify that action. In the case of, Muhammad Sadique v. Muhammad Shafi and another 1973 SCMR 212, bail on the ground of one year delay granted by the High Court was not cancelled by the apex Court. In another case Ihrar Muhammad v. The State PLD 1974 SC 224, committal Proceedings took two years, bail was granted by the Sessions Judge which order was maintained by the High Court as well as the apex Court. In said case earlier bail granted to the appellant was cancelled and directions were issued by the High Court to try the case within three months. Bail was moved again after two years however, on the assurance of the Additional Advocate-General for day to day proceeding bail was declined with direction to continue proceeding day to day. Despite such directions the case could not conclude and almost there was delay of over 5 years. The apex Court deprecated the delay as shocking and concluded it to be abuse of process of law and it was observed that there is no reason why it could not be treated as sufficient ground for bail. In case of Riasat Ali v. The State PLD 1977 SC 480. In this case also the Court not only took, into consideration the actual delay in the conclusion of the trial where the accused was behind bar for one years 9 months the apex Court yet added another facet to the delay and taking into consideration period that may be consumed in conclusion of the trial and Court concluded that case would take one or 2 and half years before it could be expected to be concluded. Bail was extended. Similar view resonated in the case of Sher Zaman v. Muhammad Azad 1978 SCMR 248 wherein delay of 28 months had occurred and there was no likelihood in the opinion of the apex Court for another year for conclusion of trial. In the case of Aijaz Ahmed v. The State 1994 SCMR 658, the bail was conceded where the witness was not examined for 6 months and before the application could be heard on merits by the Supreme Court it was noted that during 8 months of pendency of such application position has not changed, the bail was confirmed. In the case of Ghulam Jeelani v. The SHO reported in PLD 1975 SC 210 following the dicta laid down in the case of Riasat Ali (PLD 1977 SC 480) observed that the delay was considered valid ground for bail. Law declared by Supreme Court is law. It was also observed that anticipatory bail and bail on the ground of delay were result of pragmatic approach adopted by the Court. We have also examined the case of Mumtaz and 13 others v. The State 1992 PCr.LJ 2325, in said case the bail was conceded by the Court despite restriction under the 4th Proviso to section 497 Cr.
5. P. C. Which controlled the statutory right of bail .On the ground of statutory delay. In this case it appears that the accused was declined bail in the first round as his case was found to be covered by the 4th Proviso but direction were given to complete the case in three months. It appears that the directions were not complied with, after 10 months the charge was framed, a Tapedar was examined, examination-in-chief of Medical Officer was recorded, cross was reserved to be made after the examination of the complainant, the complainant could not be examined for another 6 months and after 6 months the prosecution informed that the complainant had gone to Balochistan where he was arrested and it is not known as to when he will be available. The case lingered on, 16 more witnesses were to be examined. The learned Single Judge in consideration of the principle laid down in the case of Riasat Ali (PLD 1977 SC 480) extended the bail. As noted above the Courts of law are expected to adopt a pragmatic approach to attend and interpret law in consonance with the need in changing environment. In the cases under A.T.A Act, there is specific exclusion of sections 498 and 426 Cr. P. C, the Full Bench of the Honourable Supreme Court in yet another pragmatic approach invoked the provisions of section 561-A Cr. P. C for extending benefit of bail despite exclusion of section 426 Cr. P. C the ground that found favour for extending bail may best be stated in the words of Justice Ajmal Mian speaking for the Full Bench.
6. However, it may be pointed out that the exclusion of the application of section 426, Cr. P.0 by virtue of section 7(1) of the Act during the pendency of an appeal of a convict before the High Court is founded on the assumption that the appeal would be disposed of within three months as provided in subsection (2) of above section 7 of the Act, but in case an appeal of a convict remains pending for a number of years either on account of delaying tactics on the part of the Prosecuting Agency or because of the heavy work load of the Court, would it be fair and just to deny him bail on the ground of delay. In my view, since it has been held by this Court in more than one cases already referred to herein above in para. 21 that the delay in prosecution of a criminal case amounts to abuse of process of Court/law warranting grant of bail, the High Court in a case of above nature may press into service section 561-A, Cr.P.0 but not as a matter of course or as a substitute to section 426, Cr.P.C. The delay should be of the nature which may be repulsive and unconscionable."
7. It may be observed that the delay was acknowledged as the statutory right by the legislation but for the best known wisdom same has been withdrawn but as discussed in above noted cases, bail has always been conceded by the apex Court even when such provisions were not available on the Statute Book and even in some cases where such restriction was imposed the Court conceded bail on the ground of undue delay. The principle as has been enunciated in the cases above appears to be that delay in each case is to be judged and weighed on its own merits. Inordinate delay if not explained amounts to abuse of process of law even in cases of capital punishment where the prosecution is loath in submitting the challan slow in producing witnesses, fails to produce the accused without any justification and or delaying tactics used by persons other than the accused including the complainant. There is consensus of opinion that if the delay is so shocking and scandalous, it amounts to abuse of process of law. Even where the directions of the Superior Courts are not complied with without any justifiable reason may furnish a good ground for bail. Evert in cases on the assessm ent of the police papers and conduct of the prosecution it could be seen that there is no future likelihood of conclusion of the trial in foreseeable future as for instance where proceedings against the absconding accused take time or where the trial for any other reason could not be concluded. Court may be lying vacant for long period or where dispute as to jurisdiction of Court takes unreasonable time for decision. As was held by the apex Court in Muhammad Saeed Mehdi the object of criminal trial is to make accused face trial and not to punish as UTP, expeditious trial was recognized right of accused person. As noted above, bail on the ground of delay as recognized in the year 1981, was lastly withdrawn in the year 2001. Similar rights are available to condemned person in terms of section 426 Cr. P. C. In a case from the jurisdiction of Lahore High Court cited as Khalid v. The State 1994 PCr.LJ 12. A very apt observation of the Court is contained in the following passage: "The effect of the omission of the two provisos is that the pre-amendment position of the law stands restored. Now the Court enjoys discretionary power to grant bail on the ground of delay in conclusion of the trial or refuse it keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case and precedents of the superior Courts. The deletion of the 3rd proviso does not mean that the law- makers have consciously abolished delay as a ground for bail and that a Court of law is not competent to grant bail on the ground of delay in conclusion of trial. If such a view is adopted, it would provide legal cover to delays and enable the prosecution to keep under trial prisoners behind the bars indefinitely, may be for five years or more. This can never be the intention of the law. The law makers are deemed to be aware of the salutary principle of administration of justice that "Justice delayed is justice denied" and cannot be burdened with the intention of protecting delays in trials and thereby prolonging the agony of the under trial prisoners. It is pertinent to mention that the provisions of section 426(1-A), Cr.P.C. Relating to suspension of sentence and grant of bail after conviction on the ground of delay in the hearing of appeals are intact. If the law does not countenance prejudice to the convicts, who are found to be guilty by Court, it cannot do otherwise in cases of under trial prisoners who are presumed to be innocent till proved guilty. In my view the real effect of omission of the provisos is twofold; firstly even on fulfillment of conditions specified therein, grant of bail on the ground of delay is not mandatory but has become discretionary with the Court, secondly the Court is no longer supposed to wait for 2 years in cases involving sentence of death and for one year in other cases before granting bail on the ground of delay in the conclusion of the trial. Now the Court enjoys discretion to grant bail on the ground of delay in trial even before the expiry of the periods mentioned in the 3rd proviso."
8. Preponderance of authorities discussed above that fair and expeditious trial is right of an accused person. Prosecution cannot be absolved or given any latitude on account of inability to produce accused from jail for lack of resources. It is duty of State to make arrangement for providing logistic to prosecution to ensure production of accused in Court on each and every date.
9. In case where the applicant accused is able to show that there is unexplained delay in the part of prosecution to proceed with the case, where the prosecution complainant is causing impediment in early conclusion of trial, prosecution is tardy and slow in producing evidence/witness where prosecution take undue adjournments, where co-accused are absconding and there is no possibility to commence trial in their absence and proceeding tinder sections 87 and 88, Cr.P.C. Are taking unreasonably long time. Trial Court is lying vacant for sufficiently long time where proceedings are stayed at the instance of co-accused, complainant or prosecution and there is no possibility of vacation of stay at an early date, where there is unconscionable delay in cases under Special Statute, Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 [see section 19(7) ibid] or under Special Courts for Speedy Trials Acts, 1987 [section 8 ibid], which require day to day trial, are some of the facts contributing to delay in prosecution of the case. Delay and the nature of delay in each case is to be assessed and examined on its own merits. In case where the Court comes to a conclusion that delay is unexplained, repulsive and unconscionable and further that the accused- or any person on his behalf has not contributed in causing delay the Court may enlarge the accused on bail, in cases where bail is extended on the ground of delay, surety amount may be substantial to ensure appearance of accused to face trial.
10. ' In view of the discussion made above, we are of the view that in the case of Waseemullah (2004 SCMR 860), the apex Court has not renounced the ground of delay to seek bail but in peculiar circumstances of the case, bail discretion was declined as the contention of the counsel for the petitioner that challan has not been filed despite the direction of the High Court was found incorrect as the challan was already submitted on 12-7-2002. Whereas the bail was declined by the High Court on 3-10-2002. It appears that the apex Court finding the statement of the counsel incorrect declined the bail. Therefore, in our view, in the case of Waseemullah, the apex Court has not denounced the delay as a good ground for bail, therefore, we propose to examine each case on its own merits. In Criminal Bail Application No,93/2004 applicant Imdad alias Abdul Raul sought bail in Crime No,9/2001 of P.S. Naudero. The incident took place on 13-2-2001 and the applicant was arrested on 18-2-2001 and since then he is behind bars. Challan was submitted on 3-3-2001 and the charge against the applicant was framed on 8-11-2001 which was later amended on 28-5-2002. The charge was finally amended on 27-2-2003. There are in all 11 witness so far only one witness i,e, complainant was examined on 26-2-2002. It appears that the applicant has not contributed to delay though co-accused Muhammad Sharif was acquitted under section 345(6), Cr.P.C. But on number of material dates when witnesses were present either the defence counsel was absent or he moved adjournment application. Since delay on material dates was contributed by or on behalf of accused, bail is declined. Trial Court is directed to conclude trial within 4 months.
11. In Criminal Bail Application No,463/2004 applicant Gulzar Ahmed Phul poto claimed bail in Crime No,27/2001 of P.S Nasirabad where the incident took place on 28-2-2001 and the applicant was arrested on 31-5-2001. Charge has been framed on 24-10-2003 while no witness has been examined as yet. Co-accused Muhammad Ishque and Ghulam Hussain have already been conceded bail by this Court on ground of hardship. In this case, the delay is not caused at the hands of present applicant. Co-accused Muhammad Ishaque bailed in Cr.B.A No,552/2003 on 26- 2-2004, Ghulam Hussain in Cr.B.A. 236/04 on 29-4-2004, accordingly bail is extended subject to furnishing two sureties in the sum of Rs,200,000 each and P.R bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of trial Court. Concession if misused trial Court may cancel the bail.
12. In Cr. Bail Application No,464/2004 Nazeer Hussain Phulpoto has applied for bail in Crime No,27/2001 of P.S Nasirabad in which the incident occurred on 28-2-2001 and the applicant was arrested on 13-4-2001. In this case, charge has been framed on 24-10-2003 while none of the witnesses has been examined as yet. Co-accused Muhammad Ishaque and Ghulam Hussain have already been extended bail by this Court on ground of hardship. The accused has not contributed to delay. Co-accused Muhammad Ishaque bailed in Cr. B.A No,552/2003 on 26-2-2004, Ghulam Hussain in Cr. B.A 236/04 on 29-4-2004, accordingly bail is extended subject to furnishing two sureties in the sum of Rs,200,000 each and P.R. Bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of trial Court. Concession if misused trial Court may cancel the bail.
13. In Criminal Bail Application No:505/2004 Sikander Ali Gadehi sought bail in crime No,27 of 2001 of P.S. Nasirabad. In this case, incident took place on 28-2-2001, applicant was arrested on 13-4-2001, Challan was submitted on 28-4-2001 and the charge was framed on 24-10-2003. It appears that none of the witnesses has so far been examined. The delay in trial has not been attributed to the applicant. Co-accused Muhammad Ishaque bailed in Cr.B.A. No,552/2003 on 26-2-2004, Ghulam Hussain in Cr.B.A. No,236/04 on 29-4-2004, accordingly bail is extended subject to furnishing two sureties in the sum of Rs,200,000 each and P.R bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of trial Court. Concession if misused trial Court may cancel the bail.
14. In Criminal Bail Application No,207/2004, Juwan claimed bail in Crime No,72/1996 of P.S Karampur.
15. Apparently the incident took place on 13-11-1996, accused/applicant apprehended on 17-3-2001 and the Challan was submitted on 9-10-1997. It appears that the arrest of applicant was shown in other case viz. 20-12-2000 in Crime No,3/1997 and he has been granted bail in said crime by this Court on 23-1-2001. Case is now fixed for amendment of charge. In this case, applicant is behind bars since more than 3 years and the trial has not concluded. Delay is not attributed to the present applicant. Accordingly bail is granted, however subject to furnishing two solvent sureties in the sum of Rs,200,000 and P.R bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of trial Court. In case concession of bail is misused, trial Court may cancel the bail and take action against accused and surety in accordance with the law.
16. In Criminal Bail Application No,201/2004, applicant Bhoro Sabzoie booked in Crime No,85/2001 of P.S A-Section Kandhkot where the incident took place on 2-5-2001 and he was arrested on 29-5-2001.
17. In this case, charge has not yet been framed, therefore, question of examination of witnesses does not arises the applicant is in jail continuously for almost 3 years without trial. On 9-4-2003 only the advocate for the applicant was absent. Mainly delay is not attributed to the applicant. Accordingly bail is granted, however subject to furnishing two solvent sureties in the sum of Rs,200,000 and P.R bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of trial Court. In case concession of bail is misused, trial Court may cancel the bail and take action against accused and surety in accordance with the law.
18. In Criminal Bail Application No,338/2004, applicant Badlo Jagirani sought bail in crime No,22/98 of P.S. Durani Mahar. It seems that incident took place on 29-10-1998, applicant was arrested on 9-3- 1999. Apart from the case in hand the applicant is involved in two other cases in which he has been granted bail by this Court on the ground of hardship. The applicant is in jail continuously since more than 3 years. The trial Court also remained on leave on 7-5-2003 then on 11-6-2003 to 9-7- 2003 then Court fell vacant from 31-12-2003 to 24-3-2004. Now the case is fixed for amendment of charge. Obviously, the applicant has not contributed to the delay. Accordingly bail is granted, however subject to furnishing two solvent sureties in the sum of Rs,200,000 and P.R. Bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of trial Court. In case concession of bail is misused, trial Court may cancel the bail and take action against accused and surety in accordance with the law.
19. In Criminal Bail Application No,242/2004 applicant Gaji Taigani has sought bail in Crime No,2/1999 of P.S Durani Mahar. The F.I.R was lodged on 28-1-1999, the applicant is arrested on 30-3-2000 and the charge has been framed on 20-4-2000 while no evidence of any witness has been recorded.
20. Co-accused Muhammad Alam, Sahibdino and Shabir have been admitted to bail by the trial Court and case of present applicant is also on same footings. The applicant is behind bars without trial since more than 3 years. From the record, it seems that delay is not attributed to the present applicant. Accordingly bail is granted, however subject to furnishing two solvent sureties in the sum of Rs,200,000 and P.R bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court. In case concession of bail is misused, trial Court may cancel the bail, and take action against accused and surety in accordance with the law.
21. In Cr. Bail Application No,345 of 2004 applicant Ali Mardan is involved in Crime No,107/01 seeks bail.
22. From the record, it appears that incident took place on 20-9-2001, accused Ali Mardan arrested on 14-10-2001. Names of the accused including the present applicant does not appear in the F.I.R. All the P.Ws have been examined and at final stage of the case complainant approached Bench of this Court at Sukkur for transfer of case from A.T.C-I to any other Court, in this context reference is made to Honourable Chief Justice which is still pending decision resulting into delay in trial. In this case let notice be issued to the complainant for 21-10-2004.
23. In Cr. Bail. A No,572/2004 applicant Manjhi Sunanani seeks bail in Crime No,2/00 of P.S Dodapur.
24. Incident took place on 7-1-2000, applicant was arrested on 31-1-2000 and the charge has been framed On 27-9-2000. Progress report from trial Court was already called for by this Court which is brought on record where it is mentioned that on four material dates application for adjournment was moved on behalf of the Defence Counsel. On 5-10-2001 complainant Bux Ali and two eyewitnesses Baqa Muhammad and Attur were examined, in all 8 witnesses were examined. Trial Court is directed to examine remaining witnesses within two months from the date of receipt of this order. In case trial is not concluded applicant may move afresh for bail.
25. In Criminal Bail Application No,92 of 2004, the applicant Bakhshal Bhutto has sought bail in Crime No,45/2001 of P.S Nasirabad. Incident took place on 26-4-2001, the applicant was arrested on 30-6- 2001, case was challaned on 29-5-2001, charge was framed on 24-11-2003. Some of the accused are still absconders, for four months Courts remained vacant and on many dates accused was not produced by the police. So far; none out of 20 witnesses have been examined. The delay is not attributed to the present applicant who is behind bars since more than 3 years. Accordingly applicant is extended bail subject to furnishing two sureties in the sum of Rupees Two Lacs each and P.R bond in the like amount. In case concession of bail is misused learned trial Court may cancel the bail and take action against the surety in accordance with the law.
26. In Cr. Bail Appin. No,277 of 2004, the applicant Oamaruddin and Ali Gohar have sought bail in Crime No,27/2001 of P.S. Nasirabad and incident took place on 28-2-2001 the applicant was arrested on 13-4-2001, case was challaned on 22-4-2001, charge was framed on 24-10-2003. So far, all the 15 witnesses are to be examined. No progress has been made in the trial. As per record on 12-11-2003, 1-12-2003, 15-12-2003 complainant and his witnesses were in attendance but counsel for the accused moved adjourment application, therefore, it appears that applicants have contributed to the delay therefore, bail is declined. Trial Court is directed to conclude trial within 4 months.
27. In Criminal Bail Application No,316 of 2004, the applicant Khadim Sajrani has sought bail in Crime No,50/1997, of P.S. Jagan at Hamayoun. Incident took place on 16-8-1997, the applicant was arrested on 20-11-2000. So far, all the witnesses are to be examined Although on several dates the Defence Counsel was absent that too appears owing to the fact that P.O was on leave or the Court was lying vacant or when P.Ws. Were not present. Thus the delay is not attributed to the present applicant who is behind bars since more than 3 years. Accordingly applicant is extended bail subject to furnishing two sureties in the sum of Rupees Two Lacs each and P.R bond in the like amount. In case concession of bail is misused learned trial Court may cancel the bail and take action against the surety in accordance with the law.
28. In Criminal Bail Application No,205 of 2004 applicant Sultan seeks bail in Crime No,111/1999 of P.S Thull. The incident took place on 14-7-1999. Applicant is arrested on 14-7-1999, since then he is in jail continuously. Applicant has been granted bail by this Court on 26-5-2002 in main case. Applicant is in jail for almost four years. It appears some delay has occasioned but witnesses were examined on 28-5-2004, matter was fixed on 26-5-2004 for recording statement of accused on 26-5-2004, thereafter on some dates accused was not produced and on some dates Advocate for accused moved adjournment, from diary dated 27-7-2004 it appears case was fixed for final arguments on 13-8-2004.
29. Accordingly the trial Court is directed to decide the case preferably within two months.
30. In Criminal Bail Application No,361/2004, applicant Ghulam Abbas has claimed bail in Crime No,49/2001 P.S. Karam Pur. In this case, incident took place on 9-7-2001 and the applicant was arrested on 10-7-2001. All the witnesses are yet to be examined. No progress is made in the trial for want of consent of Government of Sindh where the Government is not taking steps to expedite the trial accused cannot be left languishing in jail on account of laxity on the part of State. The applicant is behind bars since more than 3 years but the trial is not being held. The delay in trial is not caused at the hands of applicant. Accordingly applicant is extended bail subject to furnishing two sureties in the sum of Rs,200,000 and P.R bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of trial Court. In case the applicant misuse the concession trial Court may cancel the bail and take action against surety in accordance with the law.
31. In Criminal Bail Application No,362/2004, applicant Ghulam Qadir alias Qadir Bux has sought bail in Crime No,73/94 of P.S. Ghouspur. Incident occurred on 24-10-1994, applicant was arrested on 14-11- 1994. Out of nine P.Ws evidence of six P.Ws. Has been recorded while complainant himself has not supported the prosecution case. Three witnesses are yet to be examined, rest of the P.Ws as per report of process server are untraceable. It seems that accused is behind bars since more than nine years and 11 months but the trial is not being completed. The delay in trial is not attributed to the applicant. Accordingly applicant is extended bail subject to furnishing two sureties in the sum of Rs,200,000 and P.R bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of trial Court. In case the applicant misuses the concession trial Court may cancel the bail and take action against surety in accordance with the law.