' It is informed by the learned prosecutor that in this case incident took place in October, 2004. F.I.R.
Under sections 17/22 E.O., 1979 was lodged on 4th April, 2006. In pursuance thereof accused was arrested on 26-6-2006 and challan against him has been submitted on 29th November, 2006.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner alleged that charge has not been framed so far, therefore, evidence has also not been produced by the prosecution to substantiate accusation. According to him he is in custody w,e,f, 26-6-2006 and the sentence provided under section, charge against him, is up to 14 years. Since no progress is being made in the case, therefore, he is entitled for grant of bail.
3. On the other hand learned counsel for the State contended that challan has been submitted but he is not aware whether charge has been framed or not? According to him petitioner (accused) himself is responsible for causing delay in the trial of the case. Therefore, benefit of the same may not be extended to him by ordering his release on bail. It is true that in a criminal offence, merely for the reason that trial has not proceeded, bail as a matter of right cannot be claimed, particularly, when the facts and circumstances of the case are sufficient to conclude that the accused is responsible for not allowing the trial Court to proceed with the matter. However, keeping in view other facts and circumstances of the case, namely that the sentence under sections 17/22 of Emigration Ordinance, 1979 is up to 14 years, investigation of the case has been completed, challan of the case has been submitted, as per admission of both the sides and the transaction between the parties seems to be in respect of dispute of money, which stately petitioner and his son Bilal Ahmad (P.O.) had received from the complainant on the ground that he be sent to Dubai along with work permit, but he failed to meet his commitment fulfilled, we are of the opinion that no useful purpose will be served by keeping the petitioner in custody for an indefinite period, because it is not known that how much time will be consumed by the prosecution in completion of the trial.
4. Thus, for the foregoing reasons, petition is accepted and converted into appeal as a result whereof Hamid Ali son of Ch. Rehmat Ali is ordered to be released on bail, subject to furnishing surety bonds in the sum of Rs,5,00,000 with two sureties (Rs,2,50,000) and P.R. In the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court.
5. It is however, observed that name of the petitioner will be placed on E.C.L. So he may not leave the country till completion of the trial against him.