SH. HAKIM ALI, J.--- Delay in lodging of an F.I.R.
' Delay in the investigation of a case.
' Delay in the conclusion of trial of a case.
' All these three delays are to bring multifarious results and consequences to a case. First part, as noted above compels one to think over, as to why the delay was made in reporting the matter to the police. Doubts and supposition that some premeditation and pre-consultation would have been taken while reporting the occurrence are raised in the case.
' Decelerated pace in the interrogation and investigation sometimes causes extinction of material evidence, which would be most relevant to bring out the real culprits to the door of justice.
' Slacken attitude of prosecution in the trial of criminal case causes mental torture and agony to an innocent, who is lodged in jail. It gives out an impression of mala fides on the part of prosecution.
' The instant case is one, where involvements of abovementioned third situation has been noticed, stated and agitated by learned counsel for the accused. How this third situation has arisen, it can be seen when the following facts are examined.
2. On 14-11-2003, Mehar Bakhat Ali, resident of Basti Bindra, Bahawalpur, lodged and F.I.R. No.318 of 2003 with Police Station Saddar, Bahawalpur, initially under sections 324/34 of the P.P.C., which was afterward converted into section 302 of for the informant that the petitioner has been nominated in the promptly reported F.I.R. And a specific role of hitting the deceased has been ascribed to the petitioner. Therefore, the petitioner is not entitled for the grant of bail after arrest.
7. Learned A.A.-G. Has shown no inclination towards the defence or the prosecution.
8. After considering the arguments and consulting the record, it has transpired that Nazar Abbas, DSP, Shah Hussain, SP (Crimes), Sikandar Hayat, DPO, Nazar Hussain, Inspector, Qazi Riaz Ahmad, S.- I., and 2 others had investigated the case but all had found concurrently the petitioner to be not guilty of firing upon the deceased as alleged in the F.I.R. They had found the present petitioner not guilty of the occurrence.
9. It has been found by me also that even after passing of direction from this Court to conclude the trial within two months, upon the consent of both the learned counsel, the informant/prosecution has failed to bring on record the entire evidence, with these two months, From the orders-sheet, the informant/prosecution has been found not bringing their evidence, and using delaying tactics to keep the petitioner in Jail for longer term, which in fact has created a sense of deprivation of justice to and against the petitioner, who is lodged in jail after passing of more than two years without any of his fault except the allegations/accusations levelled against him by the informant in the F.I.R. The opinion of the police officials who have exceeded from 5 to 7 in numbers, all have found the petitioner innocent. Although the opinion of the police is not binding yet in the facts and circumstances of the case when no recovery was made from the petitioner and recovery of pistol was made from Maqbool Ahmad co-accused, case of the petitioner requires further probe. Failure of prosecution/ informant to produce even a witness within two months of direction creates an impression that the informant was not serious to allow the trial to be concluded in near future. Not a single witness was got examined within these two months of direction. It has also come to my notice that one of the co-accused, namely, Jamshaid has proceeded to U.K., from this country to complete his higher study as trial was expected to take many months to conclude. So, process of his abscondance and his summoning process has still to be completed through legal process which would, take sufficient time to complete. Sixteen witnesses of prosecution in toto are to be examined. The detention of the petitioner having expanded to a span of more than two years and the attitude of delaying tactics employed by the informant has compelled me to grant the petitioner the concession of bail. Therefore, I accept this application and admit the petitioner to bail after arrest in the aforesaid case subject to his furnishing bail bond in the sum of Rs.1,00,000 (One lac rupees) with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court.