1. ' Applicant Wahid Bux has sought bail in Crime No,172 of 2002 registered with P.S. Mirwah under sections 302, 324, 337-A(i), 337-F(i), 147, 148, 149 and 114, P.P.C.
2. ' Briefly stated complainant Muhammad Sharif lodged F.I.R. On 19-11-2002 at 17-30 hours alleging therein that on the same day at 16-30 hours on a complaint of his nephew Zaheer Ahmed, he, his other nephew deceased Aziz Ahmed, P.Ws. Nazir Ahmed, Zaheer Ahmed and Abdul Majeed arrived at Sui Gas Square and met co-accused Imdad Shar and while the latter was being asked by deceased as to why they had fought with his brother Zaheer Ahmed, co-accused Niaz, Wahid Bux (applicant), Ilyas, Shahmir, Ghulam Hyder and Mumtaz came running duly armed with Lathies and hatchets and on instigation of co-accused Niaz and Imdad, the applicant Wahid Bux with an intention to cause death of deceased Aziz Ahmed gave him Lathi blow at his temple; as a result, he fell down and went unconscious and the other accused gave hatchet and Lathi blows to P.W. Nazir Ahmed, Zaheer Ahmed and Abdul Majeed. It is alleged that deceased Abdul Aziz succumbed to the injury while he was being taken to hospital.
3. ' Mr. Shar, during the course of his arguments has pressed into service the only ground that the applicant is confined in jail since the day of his arrest viz. 16-12-2002 while learned trial Court to whom directions were issued by this Court, in other Cr.B.A. No,S-818 of 2003 previously filed by co- accused Mumtaz Ali, Shahmir and Ghulam Hyder, for recording the evidence of material witnesses within a period of six months, had failed in its duty, therefore, the continued confinement of the applicant has rendered his case that of hardship and he may be released on bail in view of the case of Muhammad Aslam v. State 1999 SCM R 2147, the case of Abdul Nadeem v. State 2003 M LD 1504, the case of Muhammad Yousuf v. State 2004 YLR 843 and the case of Ali Muhammad v. State 2004 YLR 1557.
4. ' The above contention of Mr. Shar has been vehemently opposed by Mr. Soomro, learned State Counsel.
5. ' I have given my due attention to the contentions of both the learned counsel and with their assistance I have examined the material placed before me. There is no denial of the fact that applicant is confined in jail for about one year and 8-1/2 months on the allegation that he was responsible for causing death of deceased Abdul Aziz by giving him Lathi blow on vital part of his body. There is also no denial of the fact that learned trial Court has not examined the material witnesses on directions given to it in Cr.B.A. No,S-818 of 2003 filed by some other accused. In the above background, it is to be seen if in view of the case-law cited as above by Mr. Shar, the applicant is entitled to the grant of bail considering his case to be of hardship. In this regard, it may be stated that in case of Muhammad Aslam (supra), the accused was arrested on 10-1-1996 and the trial Court despite directions of High Court issued on 27-5-1998, had failed to complete the trial and the accused was, therefore, admitted to bail vide order, dated 6-8-1998. It may be noted that in the cited case, the accused was released after his incarceration for more than two years and at that time a right to release the accused on the ground of delay was also available to an accused within terms of third proviso to section 497, Cr.P.C. In case of Abdul Nadeem (supra), the accused was arrested on 8-1-2002 and on 6-9-2002 directions were issued to trial Court by Lahore High Court to conclude the trial of accused within six months. Then, on an application, accused was released on bail by an order, dated 25-4-2003 as the trial Court had failed to conclude the trial. As regards the above cited case which has been decided by single Judge of Lahore High Court, it may be stated that on perusal of that case what emerges is that it cannot be said as to which role was played by the applicant therein in commission of offence; also nothing has been said as to in what circumstances the offence took place, as the background of incident has not been stated in the order. In case of Muhammad Yousuf (supra), the accused was arrested on 18-7-2000 and despite directions on 19-5-2003 to examine at least the material witnesses within a period of three months, no progress was made by trial Court and on the application of applicant, by an order, dated 11-12- 2003 he was granted bail considering his case to be of hardship. In the aforementioned cited case, too, the accused had remained in jail for more than two years before he was released on bail. In case of Ali Muhammad and others (supra), the F.I.R. Was lodged on 12-12-2002 and on directions to the trial Court to conclude the trial within a period of six months, not a single witness was examined. The applicants were released on bail by an order, dated 26-2-2004. In the said case, applicants are not found to be responsible for causing murder of deceased as is evident from the narration of brief history of prosecution case, as per F.I.R. Lodged in that case.
6. ' From above, it is quite evident that the Honourable Supreme Court released the applicant in case of Muhammad Aslam (supra) after he had remained in jail for more than two years. In case of Muhammad Yousuf (supra), too, the position was same; whereas, in the instant case applicant has even not remained in jail for two years. In the other two cited cases, the circumstances are different inasmuch as in case of Abdul Nadeem (supra), it cannot be said as to in what circumstance the applicant therein was involved and in case of Ali Muhammad and others (supra), the applicants were not responsible for murder of deceased. In the instant case there is allegation that the applicant is responsible for murder of deceased; as such, in my view the case-law cited by Mr. Shar, learned counsel for the applicant is quite distinguishable hence of no assistance to applicant.
7. His bail plea is, therefore, rejected. This bail application stands disposed of accordingly.