' Muhammad Hanif an accused for the offences of murder and attempted murder under section 302/307/34, P. P. C. Pending decision with learned Sessions Judge, Kasur, has applied for his release on bail. The application which the accused-petitioner had made before learned Sessions Judge, was turned down on the ground that the point of delay in the proceedings raised in justification of the prayer for bail could not be allowed to be re-agitated as the same was raised in the previous application which was turned down by means of order dated 13-8-1979.
2. This application is in the series of a number of applications Wed by both sides. In view of a couple of short contentions raised in support of the instant application to which reference will be made presently and the orders disposing of similar applications made by the petitioners in the past and the orders on several applications filed by the accused in the cross case, it will be idle to give here even a condensed resume of facts of the case. However, to make the order self- contained and intelligible it would suffice to say that charges of murder of Rashid deceased and of attempt at the life of his sister Mst. Sharifan were laid against the petitioner and three others including his father Haji Rehmat Ullah since dead. The case was registered at the instance of Khushi Muhammad a real brother of the deceased at Police Station, Pattoki on 2-11-1979 under First Information Report No, 253. According to the report, the petitioner had taken active part in the commission of the crime having fired at Mst. Sharifan with a gun in his hand causing her injuries in the forehead and face all around which were declared simple in nature. The petitioner and his father applied for grant of bail (Criminal Miscellaneous No, 887-B/79). The latter was allowed bail on ground of old age and the application so far it related to the petitioner was dismissed on 24-6- 1978. Petition for Special Leave to Appeal (P. S. L. A. No, 241 of 1978) to challenge correctness of the order refusing bail to the petitioner was rejected in limine by Supreme Court on 3-8-1978. A couple of weeks later, viz, on 17-8-1978, the petitioner renewed ap lication for bail before learned Sessions Judge, Kasur which was accepted on 27-8-1978 on a technical ground of non-submission of challan by the police. The remaining two accused in the case, namely, Sharif and Shaukat who are said to have caused fatal injuries to the deceased by gunshots were already admitted to bail on 1- 6-1978 for the same reason by learned Sessions Judge. Khushi Muhammad complainant filed two separate applications under subsection (5) of section 497, Cr. P. C. For orders for cancellation of bail (Criminal Miscellaneous No, 2222-B/78) and (Criminal Miscellaneous No, 3768-B/78), which both were allowed by me vide order dated 3-2-1979. The matter was unavailingly taken to the Supreme Court. Petition for Special Leave to Appeal (P. S. L. A. No, 44 of 1979) was rejected in limine by by their Lordships by means of order dated 21-2-1979.
3. The investigation of the case was re-opened at the instance of the accused and the petitioner as well as his father late Haji Rehmat Ullah were declared innocent. Supplementary challan placing the petitioner and his father as suspects in Column No, 2 was filed in Court. The police also wanted to arrest the complainant side for the offences under section 307, P. P. C. Etc. In respect of counter version of the incident which they had defied through several petitions which were dismissed one after the other, and now by a scant regard for the process of law, as was evident from the fact that they have been declared proclaimed offenders. The petitioner again applied for grant of bail (Criminal Miscellaneous No, 1869-B-79) after his application was rejected by learned Sessions Judge. The contention that case against the petitioner was that of further enquiry as he was adjudged innocent by the Investigating Officer was not evalued in favour of the petitioner and the application was turned down on 19-6-1979.
4. Mst. Khurshid Bibi daughter of Muhammad Shafi resident of the same village had also sustained grievous injuries caused by gunshot in the counter firing said to have been resorted to by the complainant side. Muhammad Shafi had also filed a complaint in the Court of a Magistrate at Chunian implicating six persons for the offences under section 307/324/148/149, P. P. C. After some proceedings which had also been subject-matter of several petitions in this Court, and need not be mentioned here, bailable warrants were eventually issued against Muhammad Amin, Muhammad Tufail and Nazeer Ahmad for the offences under sec tions 307/324/34, P. P. C. And against Muhammad Iqbal for the offence under section 506, P. P. C. By learned Sessions Judge, Kasur on 27-3-1979 Revision (Criminal Revision No, 332/79) against the order of learned Sessions Judge declining to summon the remaining two accused, namely, Khushi Muhammad complainant in the murder case and Muhammad Shafi was also rejected by me on 18-6-1979. The four accused in the complaint case named in the foregoing lines against whom process were issued appeared before learned Sessions Judge on 5-4-1979 and filed application for grant of bail. Muhammad Iqbal alone who was summoned to answer the charge of criminal intimidation under section 506, P. P. C. Was allowed bail by learned Sessions Judge on 24-4-1979. However, the accused slipped away when the ease was called for announcement of order. The order for grant of bail to Muhammad Iqbal was also withdrawn by learned Sessions Judge.
' On 2-5-1979, these accused in the complaint case filed application for transfer of the case from the Court of learned Sessions Judge under section 526, Cr. P. C. (Criminal Miscellaneous No, 91/1/79). Proceedings before learned Sessions Judge were stayed on 5-5-1979.
' On 24-6-1979, the said accused filed application for quashment of order of their arrest passed by learned Sessions Judge on 24-4-1979 (Criminal Miscellaneous No, 475-Q-79). About two weeks later, viz, on 27-7-1979, they also filed another application for abashment of proceedings initiated by the Crimes Branch (Criminal Miscellaneous No, 74/Q/79). The application for transfer of the case (Criminal Miscellaneous 91/1/79) was rejected by me on 12-6-1979 holding the view that allegations levelled against learned Sessions Judge were false, mischievous and baseless. The two petitions for quashment referred to above were dismissed on 12-7-1979. However, Khushi Muhammad, Muhammad Shafi and Muhammad Iqbal were allowed bail for the reasons stated in paragraph 7 of the judgment.
' The matter was taken to the Supreme Court through petitions for Special Leave to Appeal (P. S. L.
A. Nos. 350, 364 and 365 of 1979) filed on 30-7-1979 which were heard in motion on 8-8-1979 and interim stay was allowed only in the case of application for transfer of case from the Court of learned Sessions Judge. All the three petitions were finally rejected in limine by their Lordships on 30-10-1979 with the observations inter alia that the petition for transfer was not genuine and designed at prolonging the confinement of the other side in jail. Precisely, their Lordships remarked : "It may be further mentioned that the petitioners have secured bail in the complaint case, whereas the other party i,e, accused in the F. I. R. Case are in judicial lock-up and the purpose of the present petition apparently seems to be to prolong the confinement of the other party in jail and to drag their trial (which we are told is now in the last phase). This petition which thus lacks bona fides has no merit and is dismissed."
' These accused had on 20-8-1979 filed application for anticipatory bail before this Court (Criminal Miscellaneous 3008/B/79) after they had failed in the Supreme Court for interim relief for bail and they were admitted to bail ad interim by learned vacation Judge on 21-8-1979. This application was finally rejected by me on 14-11-1979 with the observations inter alia that the conduct of these petitioners also disentitled them to grant of anticipatory bail (paragraph 7).
5. As stated from the bar trial in the case of murder had stated on 27-6-1979 and proceedings inclusive of examination of defence evidence concluded on 5-7-1979. Proceedings in the cross case against the complainant side under section 307, P. P. C. Could not be taken up owing to order staying proceedings passed in Transfer Application (Criminal Miscellaneous No, 91/T/79) which as said above was rejected on.12-6-1919 and further stay was allowed by Supreme Court. The accused in this case had not surrendered to the process of justice, and they still remain at large and have been declared proclaimed offenders by a Court of competent jurisdiction. Resultantly, proceedings in the murder case could not come to an end as trial in the cross case could not be started. The accused in the murder case are thus in the lock-up without any proceedings whatever for the last four months and two weeks.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the petitioner was entitled to grant of bail for a two-fold reason that during re-investigation the petitioner was adjudged innocent, there were two counter versions of the incident and further detention of the petitioner in jail without any proceedings for the last few months due to a defiant's attitude of the accused in the cross case was abuse of process of Court. The first contention does not take the petitioner any far. It was also raised in the previous application (Criminal Miscellaneous 1869/B/79) by the petitioner and rejected after detailed discussion. Evidence of Investigating Officer which is relevant for the purposes of grant of bail but not binding on Court had lost its significance as evidence had already been examined in the case. It is not denied that witnesses on the side of the prosecution have in their statements confirmed the allegations made against the petitioner in the first information report. It could not, therefore, be said that in view of opinion of Investigating Officer the case against the petitioner was of further enquiry. The next contention has a substance in it. The case of murder against the petitioner and others and the cross case under section 307, P. P. C. Against the complainant side have to be disposed of simultaneously by means of separate judgments, of course. The accused in the complaint case under section 307, P. P. C. Have by their mala fide conduct, as I may say so, also on the basis of latest observations of their Lordships of Supreme Court, made it impossible for learned Sessions Judge to proceed with the case. They had done all what was possible to thwart re-investigation of the case and submission of challan or examination of evidence in the complaint case. They had also filed petition for contempt of Court (Criminal Original No, 4 of 1979) that Inspector-General of Police, Punjab had ordered investigation afresh of the case. I had rejected this application vide order dated 17-3-1979 and had also observed in the concluding line of the judgment that the petition was not bona fide and was filed to keep the respondents (Police Authorities) from performing their normal duties under the law. The accused in the complaint case had by misrepresentation secured their release from learned Sessions Judge on 4-7-1979 when they were arrested by the police as a result of re-investigation of the case which revealed that they had also allegedly committed a non-bailable offence. Despite an undertaking made before learned Sessions Judge, they did not appear before this Court on 5-7-1979 and 8-7- 1979. As said above more than once that they have not cared to submit themselves to the process of justice although they were declared proclaimed offenders. I find it unconscionable to allow the petitioner to rot in jail as the accused in the cross case had thought worth their while to block the proceedings and keep themselves beyond the reach of arm of law.
7. Learned State counsel contended that the application was liable to be rejected summarily for the reason that the question of grant of bail to the petitioner stands decided conclusively by various orders of this Court to which reference has been made in the foregoing lines. Successive applications for bail are also abuse of process of Court. This contention does not take into account the subsequent developments, already mentioned in detail. Second application for bail can be entertained where new or additional grounds are shown. Learned counsel also argued that the investigation of the case was re-opened on the request made by the petitioner. He should bear with the delay in submission of challan against the complainant side which was not possible unless the persons desired to be brought before the Court for trial were apprehended. The contention is too exiguous to call for detailed comments. Accused who has the legal right to ask for re-investigation of the case could not be penalized for the delay in the proceedings due to dilatory tactics by the other side. In any case, there is no explanation why these accused have not appeared before learned Sessions Judge in the complaint case which had been duly taken cognizance of by learned Sessions Judge although they had failed in their successive applications for grant of bail. Accused has a vested right to demand that he should know his fate immediately or within a reasonable time after evidence had concluded. To refuse bail to the petitioner will be tantamount to placing premium on the mala fide conduct of the accused in the cross case under section 307, P. P. C. And contribute to their continued efforts for prolongation of custody of the petitioner without proceedings.
' Strictly speaking, the case does not fall under subsection (4) of section 497, Cr. P. C. Which empowers, rather enjoins the Court to release the accused at any tinie after the conclusion of the trial of a person accused of a non-boilable offence and before judgment is delivered if it were of the opinion that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the accused is not guilty of any such offence. I have already held that further detention of the petitioner without proceedings for which he was not to blame in any way is abuse of process of Court. Section 498, Cr. P. C. Gives the High Court and the Court of Sessions very wide powers which are not fettered by the limitations laid down in section 497, Cr. P. C.
8. In the result, the application is accepted and the petitioner is allowe bail in the sum of Rs, 10,000 (ten thousand) with two sureties with persona bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of learned Sessions Judge Kasur. The latter will be at liberty to cancel the bail of the petitioner a and when he finds it necessary in the interest of administration of justice.