1. Petitioner Shahid alias Shadoo through the instant petition has sought for post-arrest bail in case F.I.R. No.818 dated 7-11-2004 under sections 324/337-F(i)/337-F(iii)/337-H(2)/334/148/149, P.P.C.
2. Registered with Police Station Chak Jhumra, District Faisalabad.
3. ' Bail has been sought mainly on the ground that despite direction for conclusion of his trial within four months, the same has not been concluded, while he in no way is responsible for the same. In support of such submission the reliance has been placed upon the cases of Ashok v. The State, (1997 SCM R 436) and Imran alias Gogi v. State (2004 PCr.LJ 1630); and that his non-production from jail by the police cannot be said to be an act contributing delay in the trial and in this regard reliance has been placed upon the case of Muhammad Rafiq v. The State (PLJ 1975 Cr.0 Lahore 359).
4. ' As against the same the learned counsel for the State assisted by the learned counsel for the complainant has opposed the petition on the ground that in fact the learned trial Court has delayed the conclusion of the trial and so the complainant can't be made to suffer for the same by allowing the petitioner to bail; and that mere delay in commencement of trial is no ground for bail and in this regard reference has been made to the cases of Bachan Soap v. The State (1987 PCr.LJ 1456 Lahore), Qaisar Abbas v. The State (1996 PCr.LJ 1677 Lahore), Muhammad Fayyaz v. The State (2004 PCr.LJ 1441 Lahore) and Liaqat Ali v. The State (2004 PCr.LJ 962 Lahore).
5. ' I have carefully considered the submissions made by both the sides and gone into the available record.
6. As is obvious from the above position that the petitioner has sought bail in the instant case on the ground of non-compliance of direction of this Court in respect of the conclusion of trial within a stipulated period.
7. ' It may be mentioned here that on 11-7-2003, in Crl. Misc. No.3454-B of 2003, titled Naeem Tahir v.
8. The State, His Lordship M. Naeemullah Sherwani, J. As he then was pleased to direct the learned trial Court to conclude the trial within four months on receipt of that order by it. The said period was to expire on 10-11-2003. The position of the trial of the petitioner is that so far only one witness has been recorded in the case. The next date of the same is 30-10-2004 for summoning the accused mentioned in Column No.2 of the challan report. It means that the early conclusion of the trial is still not in sight. It is, rather at it's very initial stage.
9. ' In the case of Ashok v. The State (1997 SCM R 436) and Imran alias Gogi v. State (2004 PCr.LJ 1630), the accused was allowed bail on the ground that their respective trials were not concluded within the period fixed by this Court.
10. ' Learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently contended that except on 8-3-2004, the petitioner has never sought adjournment in the case. This has not been controverted by the other side.
11. ' In the case of Muhammad Rafiq v. The State (PLJ 1975 Cr.C. (Lah.) 359), it has been held that the accused cannot be held responsible for delay in trial when he has not been produced from jail.
12. The direction period stood expired about a year ago. As per the views expressed in the above cited cases from the petitioner's side, he is entitled to the benefit of the situation of non-compliance of direction of this Court.
13. ' The above-referred case-law by the other side is not at all aptly applicable to the instant case because the question of compliance of the order of this Court regarding conclusion of trial within a certain period of time was not there in those cases.
14. The petitioner therefore, is entitled to bail on that score alone. I, therefore, accepting the petition admit him to bail subject to his furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs.1,00,000 (Rupees one lac) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court.