1. ' GHULAM DASTAGIR A. SHAHANI, J.---I intend to dispose of all the above Mentioned four bail applications by this single order, as all the applicants/accused are saddled with a crime No,72/2006 registered under sections 302/324/147/148/149, P. P. C . At. P. S . Pirabad by complainant Abdul Ghafoor son of Mian Rasool.
2. ' The facts of the prosecution case are to the following effect:-- "I am residing on the above said address along with my family and brothers and I am transporter.
3. Today on 28-5-2006, I was present at my house mason and labourers were working on the wall of our house. At about 4-00 p.m. My neighbourer namely Ghulam Abbas son of Abdullah, Mawaz Khan son of Abdullah, Imran Khan son of Abdullah came at my door and started abusing me and asked me to remove the mason from the wall. I apologized from them and in the meantime Nawaz Khan and his brothers and sisters namely Mst. Gul Khatoon, Mst. Naseebah Khatoon, Noori and Hameeda. Khatoon assaulted us who had dandas and hatchets in their hands. Mst. Gul Khatoon alias Gukki gave danda blows on the head of my mother Kakai Khatoon who sustained injuries and I took her to the doctor for treatment. As soon as I reached at my house after giving medical treatment to my mother a about 5-15 p.m. Ghulam Abbas Khan son of Abdullah started Firing upon us with deadly weapons. Mawaz Khan son of Abdullah Khan fired upon my younger brother Farooq son of Mian Rasool with his weapon who fell down on the ground and in the meantime Naseeban d/o Abdullah gave hatchet blows on the head of my brother Farooq who died on the spot. Ghulam Abbas son of Abdullah fired upon my brother Riaz Khan with intention to kill him and one bullet hit on the right side of chest of my brother Riaz Khan and Hameeda Khatoon d/o Abdullah and Imran Khan son of Abdullah gave hatchet blow to my brother Riaz Khan, which hit him on his forehead. I took them to Abbasi Shaheed Hospital. My complaint is against accused Ghulam Abbas son of Abdullah, Mawaz Khan son of Abdullah, Imran Khan son of Abdullah, Naseeban Khatoon d/o Abdullah, Mst. Gul Khatoon alias Gukki widow of Abdullah, Noori d/o Abdullah and Hameeda d/o Abdullah is to make firing upon my younger brother Farooq son of Mian Rasool for firing with deadly weapon and gave hatchet blows and to cause murder of my brother and to make firing upon my another brother Riaz Khan son of Mian Rasool and to cause him injury by fire arms and with hatchets. This incident has been witnessed by Mohllah people namely Gul Hussaini son of Abdul Majeed and Feroz Khan son of Ali Khan."
4. ' After registration of such F.I.R, the applicant/ accused approached to the Sessions Court for interim bail, which was granted to them on 10-7-2006 and was confirmed on 8-8-2006. The complainant being aggrieved by such order, filed a criminal Misc Application No,159 of 2006 before this Court for cancellation of bail. After hearing the parties vide order dated 7-8-2007 the bail granted to the applicants/ accused was recalled and the trial Court was directed to decide the bail application of the applicants/accused afresh within one week from the date of the order. Trial Court again Beard learned counsel and dismissed vide order dated 20-8-2007 and the applicants were remanded to judicial custody. Applicants again approached the trial Court seeking post- arrest bail, but same was dismissed by the trial Court vide order dated 8-9-2007. Applicants approached to this Court for bail, but this Court vide order dated 11-1-2008 rejected their bail application. They approached to the Honourable Supreme Court of Pakistan by filing a Criminal Petition No,2-K of 2008 seeking leave to appeal against the order dated 11-1-2008 passed by this Court in a Criminal Bail Application No,893 of 2007 but Honourable Supreme Court of Pakistan dismissed the petition of the applicants vide order dated 22-4-2008. The applicants once again repeated bail application on the ground that six months period has been passed but trial has not been concluded therefore, applicants are entitled for grant of bail. The trial Court dismissed the bail application of the applicants vide order dated 23-7-2008, hence present applications.
5. ' Mr. Mehmood Habibullah learned counsel for the applicants/ accused, has not argued on the merits of the case, as bail applications of the applicants/accused have already been dismissed by the Honourable Supreme Court of Pakistan on merits. He did not press bail applications Nos. 887, 888 and 890 of 2008 with a request that he will be satisfied if the trial Court be directed to conclude the trial within a reasonable time.
6. ' However, learned counsel in the bail application No,889/2008 filed on behalf of applicant/ accused Mst. Naseeban Khatoon, argued that applicant/accused having a suckling baby namely Saiwera who is one to 1-1/2 years old and is with her mother, he therefore, prayed that on the ground of having suckling baby, the applicant/accused may be granted bail. Learned counsel relied upon a case of Haji Shah v. Mst. Musarat alias Phullah and another 2001 PCr.LJ 262 Mst.
7. Ruqiya Bibi v. The State (2001 PCr.LJ 613), Mst. Ansar Jan v. State and another 2000 PCr.LJ 586, Vikio v. Abdullah and another (1980 PCr.LJ 602) and Aijaz Ali v. The State and 2 others PLD 1981 Kar 484.
8. ' On the other hand Mr. Asadullah Baloch learned counsel for the State and Syed Sulleman Badshah learned counsel for the complainant opposed the grant of the bail to the applicant/accused Mst.
9. Naseeban Khatoon, on the ground that specific role of causing hatchet to the deceased Farooq is attributed to the applicant/accused Mst. Naseeban Khatoon, on merits bail already declined, therefore, she is not entitled to the grant of bail.
10. ' Syed Sulleman Badshah learned counsel for the complainant further added that charge was framed on 21-11-2007 and matter is being adjourned time to time on the request made by the defence counsel though P. Ws. Were in attendance particularly on 11-12-2007, 18-12-2007, 21-1-2008, 26-1-2008 and 26-4-2008 respectively.
11. ' I have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length and with their assistance perused the material available on record. Learned counsel for the applicant/accused in his arguments emphasized that applicant Mst. Naseeban Khatoon having a suckling baby of one to 1-1/2 years old, therefore, she is entitled for the grant of bail. Learned counsel for the applicant/accused has not annexed any document showing that the applicant/ accused having suckling baby of one to 1- 1/2 years old. I have minutely perused the record. However, on perusal of record of Criminal Bail Application No, 893/2007 at page 101, it appears that a Birth Certificate has been Annexed as H-1, issued by Gynecologist, D.H.Q. Hospital Mianwali, wherein, it is specifically mentioned that applicant was admitted in the hospital on -6-2006 and on the same day she delivered a baby girl. However, she was discharged on 6-6-2006. From perusal of the Birth Certificate annexed by the learned counsel for the applicant/accused Mst. Naseeban Khatoon shows that on 7-6-2008 baby A has completed two years of age and presently she is aged about two years and three months and could not said to be a suckling baby. Reliance is placed in a case of Mst. Nusrat v. The State (1996 SCM R 973), in which ad-interim bail was allowed to accused till the hearing of the petition for leave to appeal by observing that Holy Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) in a case of Ghamidiyya suspended the sentence of pregnant women not only till delivery of e child but also postponed it till sucking period viz two years. In the present case, child of the applicant/accused is admittedly a ed about more than two years, therefore, the case cited by the learned counsel for the applicant/ accused is distinguishable from the case in hand, so also other cases referred by the learned counsel as matter reported Haji Shah v. Mst. Musarat alias Phullah and another 2001 PCr.LJ 262 is concerned bail was granted to the lady as case was pending investigation since last more than one year, so far case of Mst. Ansar Jan v. State and another 2000 PCr.LJ 586 is concerned, bail was granted keeping in view the advance pregnancy of the petitioner and welfare of the child who was expected to be born in a couple of days, and for the case of Mst. Ruqiya Bibi v.
12. The State (2001 PCr.LJ 613) is concerned, that was a case of 16/10 of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood)
13. Ordinance 1979 and concession of bail was extended to a lady on the ground that lady having five children. So far Vikio v. Abdullah and another (1980 PCr.LJ 602) and Aijaz Ali v. The State and 2 others PLD 1981 Kar 484 are concerned, principles have been laid down that under what circumstances fresh bail application can be moved and to be considered.
14. As such it is crystal clear that grant or bail on the plea of suckling child could only be allowed when the child is under the age of two years. In view of the aforesaid facts, circumstances and law. I am of the view that there was no fresh ground on the basis of which bail application was to be repeated as entire material was considered at the time of dismissal of bail application moved on behalf of the applicants up to the stage of Honourable Supreme Court. Therefore, having no other alternative, Criminal Bail Application Nos. 887, 888, 889, 890 of 2008 are dismissed. However looking to the involvement of the ladies, the trial Court is directed to conclude the trial within a period of six months under intimation to this Court. Please note that non-compliance of the order amounts to disobedience.