1. ' FARRUKH ZIA G. SHAIKH, J.--- Applicants Abdul Karim alias Karoo and Rab Nawaz alias Raboo have filed this application under section 497, Cr.P.C. Seeking bail, who are wanted in F.I.R. Crime No,58 of 2006 registered at Police Station Adilpur for offence under sections 302, 34, 147, 148, 149, 337-H(ii), 114, 337-F(iii), P.P.C.
2. ' In brief the facts are that the case was initiated on an F.I.R. Lodged by complainant Rahib Ali Wrind on 3-7-2006 stating therein that there is a dispute going on between complainant and applicant Abdul Kareem and others over the matter of Zina with a boy. On 2-3-2006 he along with his maternal-cousin (Masat) Muhammad Paryal and relative Pahlwan including Sahib went to attend the marriage ceremony while they were returning and when at 7-30 p.m., reached at forest Adilpur, they found accused Shahnawaz empty-handed, Rab Nawaz, Abdul Karim (appellant No,1), Mehar and three unidentified persons armed with guns surrounded them. On the instigation accused Mehar directly fired from his gun, at Muhammad Paryal, which hit him on his right side of abdomen, right hand and fell down, whereas accused Rab Nawaz fired from his gun at Pahlwan, which hit him in his finger or right hand, while present applicant Abdul Kareem fired with his gun at Sahib, which hit him on his leg. Hence the above F.I.R. Was lodged.
3. ' Mr. Ghulam Shabeer Shar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the applicants had moved bail plea on the ground of hardship and delay. He has contended that the applicants are continuously in jail since their arrest and keeping in view the continuous detention of the applicants in jail, directions were issued by this Court for examining the complainant and P. Ws. Sahib and Pahlwan at least within a period of 45 days, the trial Court has failed to comply with such directions, as such delay is not on the part of applicants. He has further argued that the trial is not likely to conclude in near future and the applicants, who are languishing in jail for the last 27 months, cannot be kept behind bars for an indefinite period without trial. In support of above contention, he has relied Abdullah v. The State 2003 PCr.LJ 413, Muhammad Imran Khalid v. The State 2005 PCr.LJ 1069, Jagday v. The State 2005 PCr.LJ 557 and Shabir and another v. The State 2003 PCr.LJ 1521.
4. ' Though, on the other hand, Mr. Agha Ather Hussain, learned Assistant Advocate-General appearing on behalf of the State, has opposed the application but has nqt been able to controvert the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the applicant.
5. ' I have heard the arguments of Mr. Ghulam Shabeer Shar, learned counsel appearing for the applicants as well as Mr. Agha Ather Hussain Assistant Advocate-General for the State and with their assistance I have also perused the material available on record.
6. This bail application is pressed mainly on the ground of hardship and delay. It has been noticed that in this case, the applicants are behind the bars for the last more than 27 months, but in spite of specific directions issued by this Court, the trial Court has failed to conclude the trial within a period of 45 days and not a single witness has been examined by the trial Court so far. Such a long delay in conclusion of trial by itself will be an abuse of the process of the Court, therefore, no one can be detained in jail for an unlimited period. The law referred to above fully supports the case of the applicants.
7. ' Consequently, I am inclined to accept this application and admit the applicants to bail, subject to furnishing surety in the sum of Rs,2,50,000 (Rs,two lac and fifty thousand) only, each and P.R. Bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court.
8. ' Bail application stands disposed of in the above terms along with all listed applications.