1. ' NADEEM AZHAR SIDDIQUI, J.---The applicant is facing trial in Crime No,53 of 1993 under section 302/34, P.P.C.
2. ' The F.I.R. Was lodged on 13-5-1993 and the applicant was arrested on 13-7-2000. The allegation against the applicant in the F.I.R. Is that he caused fire-arm injuries and has committed murder of Muhammad Punhal. The applicant has moved bail application before the 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Larkana, who while dismissing the bail application has observed as under:- "The circumstances of the case that the applicant/accused has been nominated in F.I.R. All the P.Ws. Have implicated in their respective statements under section 161, Cr.P.C. And the medical certificate which supports the ocular version. So far the delay is concerned no doubt such delay is not on the part of applicant/accused nor any person else acting on his behalf but since this is a case of capital punishment, therefore, such delay cannot be the sole ground for grant of bail to the applicant/accused, hence I hereby reject the bail application in circumstances . "
3. ' I have heard learned counsel for the applicant, the only ground urged before me is the delay in conclusion of the trial. Learned counsel submitted that accused was arrested on 13-7-2000 and in spite of lapse of about 6 years not a single witness was examined and there is also no hope of early conclusion of the trial. Learned counsel relied upon reported case of Ghulam Abbas v. The State (PLD 2005 Kar. 255). The learned Sessions Judge in his order states that the delay is not on the part of the applicant accused. No doubt the applicant is facing trial under section 302, P.P.C. But he cannot be detained as a punishment. Fair and early conclusion of trial is the right of every accused person and he cannot be deprived of the same. The delay itself is not a valid ground for grant of bail but to avoid injustice and abuse of process of law, long delay in conclusion of trial can be a good ground for grant of bail when delay is not attributed to the accused person.
4. ' Learned State Counsel has also conceded for the grant of bail on the ground of long delay and submits that due to unavoidable circumstances the delay was caused.
5. In this matter the case is pending since 1993 and the applicant was arrested on 13-7-2000 and it appears that there is no likelihood of the early conclusion of the trial. The long delay in conclusion of trial amounts to abuse of process of law. The delay is also unexplained. It is strange that the case is pending since 1993 without proper trial. The learned D.B. Of this Court while dealing the issue of delay in conclusion of trial has observed as under:-- "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. Even 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."
6. Keeping in view the above observation this is a fit case for grant of bail on the ground of delay in conclusion of trial.
7. ' In the above, circumstances, I have no option but to release the applicant on bail subject to furnishing of surety 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 the applicant as well as against the surety in accordance with law.
8. ' Before parting with this order, it will be appropriate to call report from the trial Court to explain the long delay in conclusion of trial as well as suggest measures for early conclusion of trial. The report will be submitted within 10 days from today. In any case, the, learned trial Court is directed to proceed with the case day to day and will conclude the trial within six months from today, and will submit report for the perusal of this Court through Additional Regsitrar of this Court. The learned Sessions Judge, Larkana will also watch the proceedings of the trial Court so that the trial be concluded as early as possible.
9. ' The bail application is disposed of.