' KARAMAT NAZIR BHANDARI, J.--- Respondent No,1 Muhammad Azam is an accused in case F.I.R.
No,293 of 2003, dated 23-8-2003 registered at Police Station Mozang, Lahore under sections 302/324/148/149/109, P.P.C. Read with section 7 of the Anti-Terrorism Act and section 13 of the Arms Ordinance, 1965, and has been allowed bail by a Division Bench of the Lahore High Court on 28-6- 2006 on the main ground that Zahoor Ahmad injured P.W. Has not supported the allegation against the respondent. Through this petition the complainant seeks leave to appeal against the order of the High Court dated 28th June, 2006.
2. It is argued by Mr. M.A. Zaffar, learned Advocate Supreme Court for the petitioner that even if Zahoor Ahmad injured P.W. Has not supported the allegation, the remaining eye-witnesses namely Ashfaq Ahmad, Mumtaz Ahmad and Waqar Ahmad have supported the allegation in their statements under section 161, Cr.P.C. He has explained that because the accused are applying delaying tactics, the trial is not progressing and for this reason the testimony of these witnesses has not yet been recorded. Mr. Muhammad Yasin Chughtai, learned Advocate Supreme Court appearing for the respondent-accused has supported the impugned order by submitting that the said accused was arrested on 6-1-2004 and for more than 2-1/2 years he has been rotting in jail, without much progress in trial. He has denied that the accused are delaying the completion of trial.
He further stated that even during investigation the allegation against Muhammad Azam were found incorrect:
3. We have gone through the F.I.R. And the direct allegation against Azam accused is that with his weapon he fired at injured Zahoor. Admittedly Zahoor, in his statement during trial has not supported the allegation. In the circumstances the testimony of other eye-witnesses supporting the allegation may not be very helpful to the prosecution. If the trial is not concluded for 2-1/2 years the prosecution cannot throw the entire blame on the side of the accused. Resultantly we are of the opinion that the respondent has rightly been granted bail and no interference by this Court is called for.
4. With a view to ensure ends of justice we direct the trial Court to complete the trial expeditiously but not later than six weeks. Needless to clarify that whatever is stated in this order is tentative and the Courts below will proceed to decide the case on its own merit uninfluenced by any observation/finding recorded in this order.
5. Leave is refused and this petition is dismissed.