1. ' SYED MEHMOOD ALAM RIZVI, J.---Heard learned counsel at length. This bail application has been argued for two hours on merits and has gone through the evidence. He claimed that there are material contradictions but prima facie no contradiction is shown. The complainant and her sister have directly implicated the applicant with role and during cross-examination even suggestion of the Defence counsel amounting to admission of the incident but I do not want to go in deeper appreciation which obviously affect the case of either side.
2. ' Learned counsel for the applicant besides on merits also argued on the ground of fatal delay and relied upon the following judgments 1990 SCMR 2147, 200 SCMR 107, 2003 PCr.LJ 37, PLD 2004 Kar.
3. 563, 2005 PCr.LJ 715 and requested that even after giving earlier directions by this Court, the case has not been concluded as yet and prayed for bail.
4. ' The brief facts of the case are that on 13-9-1999 at 1245 hours applicant entered in the house of complainant and opened fire with gun and killed Mst. Madina, mother of complainant and injured Mst. Fahmida, the sister of complainant as they had broken the engagement of accused with Mst.
5. Hameeda. Thereafter challan was submitted against three accused Ilahi Bux and Hazaro Khan who said to have present with the accused but no vital role was assigned to them. They were shown in custody while Abdul Khaliq, the applicant was placed in Column No,2 as absconder and ultimately he was arrested after passage of 11 months i,e, 11-8-2000 and without licence a crime weapon was also recovered from his possession for which a separate case under section 13-D Arms Ordinance has been registered.
6. 'After framing charge four prosecuting witnesses have been examined in which Muhammad Amin the cousin of the complainant who was eye-witness declared hostile regarding firing by Abdul Khaliq upon deceased but he admitted the incident and also admitted his presence at the spot.
7. P.W.2, Dr. Amna Zafar also corroborated the prosecution case. She conducted the post-mortem.
8. P.W.3. Muhammad Waseem the complainant was examined on 26-10-2005 who corroborated the prosecution story. While P.W.4. Mst. Hameeda examined on 8-3-2006 and 25-5-2006 also corroborated the prosecution story. She also stated that her injured sister has gone to Canada. In challan there were total 8 prosecution witnesses among them it is reported that the I/O has expired. After examination of 4 P. Ws. No witness was examined and bail application was filed which was turned down by the Trial Court, therefore, the applicant filed bail application No,816 of 2006 before this Court and vide order, dated 6-2-2007 this Court gave direction to conclude the case expeditiously and preferably within 3 months. As the Trial Court was lying vacant, a direction was also given that the case may be transferred to other Court and subsequently on 28-2-2007 the case was transferred to IInd Additional Sessions Judge, Nawabshah and since then no witness has been examined as upto July, 2007, the case diaries have been filed with the bail application.
9. ' The ratio of judgments no doubt, regarding the right of expeditious trial of every accused as in 1999 SCM R 2147 relied by the advocate for the applicant specifically mention that despite a direction case could not be completed and bail was granted. In 2000 SCM R 107 basically the bail was granted on medical ground besides delay. In 2003 PCr.LJ 37, inspite of direction case could not proceed, hence the bail was granted. In PLD 2004 Kar. 563 the vital role was assigned to co- accused, therefore, bail was granted. In 2005 PCr.LJ 715 bail was granted on the ground of delay as accused was in custody for last 4 years but the main ground was that the age of the accused was 12 years and 9 months.
10. ' On the other hand Mr. Muhammad Azeem Panhwar, State counsel vigorously opposed the bail application and stated that specific role has been assigned to applicant in F.I.R. And statement of injured recorded under section 161, Cr.P.C. In which the injured also implicated the applicant with specific role and prima facie case is made out against him and at this stage deeper appreciation cannot be discussed and he further stated that medical evidence has been examined, complainant has been examined and the eye-witness Mst. Hameeda who also examined and later both have implicated the applicant with specific role and with motive. He further stated that apparently case has been concluded, the Investigating Officer has expired so any officer of that police station would appear in Court and produce the documents before the Court and if the prosecution is willing to produce besides others any witness it can be done, otherwise not necessary to record the statement of other witnesses because the prosecution apparently has proved the case. He has relied upon Mundars and others v. The State (PLD 1990 SC 934 (Larger Bench) and contended that at that time statutory delay i,e, 3rd proviso to section 497, Cr.P.C. Was applicable and in Mundars case bail application was granted to that accused against whom the other cases were pending as either he has been granted bail or has been acquitted while bail to Mundar was rejected because he had killed more than one persons and one luckily was injured otherwise he would have also killed that injured. The act of Mundar apparently show his brutality. In this case in a very tiny ground the applicant entered into the house and brutally murdered the mother of the complainant and injured her sister who shifted to Canada.
11. ' At this stage, learned counsel for the applicant who had short standing at the bar requested that if direction is given to the Trial Court he would be satisfied. Though he has taken two hours to argue the bail application but keeping in view of his good presentation of the case, the A Court is inclined to give direction to the Trial Court to conclude the case within 3 months and progress report be submitted after every 15 days to the Additional Registrar of this Court and if the case could not be completed within 3 months, the Trial Court should make reference to this Court for further time, if required.
12. ' Learned State Counsel Mr. Muhammad Azeem Panhwar is directed that he should take steps to conclude the case within specific time by giving direction to the concerned prosecutor to get close the side and fix the case on statement under section 342, Cr.P.C. Or otherwise if advised.
13. ' By the above direction, this bail application is disposed of.