' HABIB ULLAH SHAKIR, J.- Through this petition, Shakeel Ahmad petitioner seeks post-arrest bail in case F.I.R No, 488/2006 under sections 302/ 324/337-A (ii)/337-F(i)/34/148/149 of the P.P.C, registered at Police Station Saddar Khanpur, District Rahimyar Khan.
2. According to the prosecution case on 5-9-2006 at Zohar Wela, the petitioner and his other co- accused, armed with deadly weapons, caused injuries to Abdul Hameed, brother of the complainant, Abdul Majeed, complainant, Akmal, Ajmal and Gull Hassan P.Ws, on the dispute of scuffle of children. Initially the F.I.R was registered under sections 324/148/149 of the P.P.C, however, later on Abdul Hameed died and section 302 of the P.P.C, was also added.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner argues that the petitioner is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case due to enmity and that the story narrated in the F.I.R is concocted one because the occurrence did not take place in the street, rather the complainant party trespassed into the house of the petitioner/accused party, opened fire whereby the petitioner and his mother Mst. Zohran Bibi as well as Abdul Hameed deceased suffer injuries. The learned counsel argues that Saeed Ahmad filed a complaint wherein the complainant party has been summoned as accused.
It is further argued that amongst the co-accused of the petitioner Khalil was declared innocent by the police yhile Bilal Ahmad and Jalil, were admitted to bail by the learned trial Court; that the petitioner is in jail since 15-10-2006 but the trial has not yet concluded despite direction of this Court for expeditious disposal of the trial of the case, issued vide order dated 4-8-2008 passed in Crl. M. No, 378-B-2008 (Shakeel Ahmad v. The state and another);
4. The learned Deputy Prosecutor- General assisted by the learned counsel for the complainant opposed the grant of bail to the petitioner on the grounds that the petitioner is nominated in the F.I.R with a specific role of causing injury to the deceased; that the recovery of weapon of offence has been effected from the petitioner, which prima facie connects him with the commission of offence falling within the prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C.
5. I have heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record. Earlier the petitioner filed Crl. M. No, 378-B-2008 for grant of post-arrest bail almost on the same grounds as are taken in the instant petition. The said petition was dismissed on 4-8-2008 as withdrawn with the direction to the learned trial Court to conclude the trial of the case expeditiously but preferably within a period of six months positively. Despite direction of this Court, the trial has not been concluded and statement of even a single witness has not been recorded as yet. With the assistance of learned counsel for the parties, I have perused the order sheet of the leamed trial Court, which reveals that most of the adjournments were made due to non-availability of the learned Presiding Officer or at the reguest of the learned counsel for the complainant. Only a few adjournments were made at the request of learned defence counsel. Therefore, the delay in conclusion of the trial cannot solely be attributed to the petitioner. The perusal of the order sheet further reveals that there is no chance of an early disposal of the trial. The petitioner has been in jail for the last 2-1/2 years without any progress in the trial of the case. To my mind, it is a sufficient ground to admit the petitioner to bail as his incarceration in jail for an indefinite period without any apparent progress in the trial would not justified. Further the accused party has taken the stance that the complainant party is aggressor and the occurrence has not taken place in the manner as alleged by the complainant. In this regard a private complaint has also been filed in which the persons of complainant party have been summoned as accused. The fact that who is aggressor would be determined during the trial after recording of evidence. Khalil Ahmad, co-accused who was duly nominated in the F.I.R had already been declared innocent by the police which fact, prima facie, makes the case one of further inquiry. The alleged recovery has already been made from the petitioner and he is no more required by the police for further interrogation. In this view of the matter, the petitioner is admitted to post-arrest bail, provided he furnished bail bond in the sum of Rs, 100,000 (One hundred thousand rupees) with one surety in the'like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court.