Adnan, Clerk of Peer Bakhsh Mahtab, Advocate, counsel for the petitioner has submitted detailed, written arguments, which were perused. Perusal of the record reveals that the petitioner has been charged vide FIR No, 18 dated 13.6.2007 under Section 9 of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act.
2. Briefly narrated the facts of the case are that Inspector Nasir Iqbal of Police Station ANF Kohat was on `gasht' and checking duty. In the meantime a Suzuki car VXR white colour was intercepted which was being driven by a person who disclosed his name as Muhammad Shafiullah Khan. On search a shopping bag wrapped in a red cloth was found underneath the seat. On recovery and weighing of the same, 3 K.Gs charas was recovered from the said wrapper. Out of the same 10 grams were sealed in a separate parcel and sent to Forensic Science Laboratory for chemical, analysis. The report is in positive. Previously the petitioner Muhammad Shafiullah submitted application-for bail, which was disallowed by the trial Court. Finally it came to this Court vide Cr.
Misc. No, 1048/2007, which came for hearing before Hon'ble Mr. Justice Tariq Parvez, Chief Justice, as he then was and who by order dated 12.10.2007 rejected the bail application. However, he made observations as under:- "In narcotics cases, hardly 2/3 witnesses are to be examined which can easily be done in one or two dates. In view thereof, this application for bail is dismissed but direction are given to learned trial Judge that he shall positively conclude the trial within one month from today, failing which petitioner, if applies for bail, his application shall be considered favourably provided no adjournment during the said period is sought by the defence."
3. Now the petitioner has submitted this fresh bail application on the ground of delay in disposal of the case as ordered by this Court in the order, cited above. Perusal of the record reveals that the case has been put in Court, proceedings are in progress and order sheet reveals that on each and every date of hearing the witnesses were present and the learned counsel for the accused- petitioner namely, Muhammad Zahoor, Advocate Kohat used to adjourn this case on one pretext or the other. So apparently the delay was not on the part of the prosecution but rather it was the counsel for the petitioner who was instrumental in delaying the proceedings and the impact whereof would have to be borne by the accused.
4. With regret it is noted that since 12.11.2007 till 21.1.2008, the case was being adjourned on the request of the counsel for the petitioner. So the fresh ground agitated in the application will not prevail with this Court as the delay cannot be attributed to the prosecution. It is the duty of the advocate/counsel specially in cases where the accused are behind the bar languishing either for their release on bail or for their acquittal or for conviction, the counsel is duty bound to assist the Court and to provide speedy justice to his client. This is not only the legal duty of an advocate but also as ordained by the Allah Almighty in the Holy Quran that administer justice because it is near to piety and nearness to piety means nearness to Allah Almighty and any one who violates the Holy ordains of Allah Almighty as described in this Holy verse, are the fuel of inferno.
5. Under the cannons of professional conduct prescribed under the Legal Practitioner and Bar Council Act and rules, an advocate is duty bound to assist the Court in order to administer speedy justice and any violation of the same amounts to professional misconduct. Disentitling an advocate to remain on the role of the advocates. While dismissing this bail application, once again a direction is made to the petitioner as well as the trial Court to conclude the trial as expeditiously as possible. The record be immediately sent back to the trial Court.