1. ' KHALID ALI Z. QAZI, J.---Learned counsel states that previously in Criminal Bail Application No,218 of 2007 direction were issued by this court for expeditious disposal of the matter by the trial court.
2. Thereafter on 8-10-2008 in Criminal Bail Application No,420 of 2008 again it was observed by this court that the record of the trial court was set ablaze by a mob as a result of which, file has been reconstituted and the case is fixed for framing of the charge but could not be framed due to adjournment. Therefore, under the circumstances, it was observed that order passed on 26-7-2007 by this court be complied. With the above observation, application was dismissed as withdrawn. In spite of reconstitution of the file, the case has not yet been concluded by the trial court till today for the reason that the complainant is in jail and he has to produce his witnesses despite repeated direction of the trial court. Under the circumstances, since the complainant is in jail, therefore, there is no probability at the moment for producing the prosecution witnesses in the trial court in near future.
3. ' Learned State counsel has raised objection on the grant of bail and states that the jail authorities produced the complainant on 8-4-2009 and 5-5-2009 but the adjournments were sought by the defence, therefore, the defence seems not to be interested in proceeding with the matter.
4. I have heard both the learned counsel. It would be seen that previously in Criminal Bail Application No,218 of 2007 and in Criminal Bail Application No,420 of 2008 direction was issued by this court for the trial of the case to be concluded within six months. However, the same has not been done perhaps due to the fact that the complainant is behind the bars in some other case and when he was produced, case could not be proceeded. It is also surfaced from perusal of the record that the Court file was burnt by the mob at the time of Shahadat of Mohtarma Benazir Bhutto on 27-12-2007 thereafter file was reconstituted. The charge has been framed and the applicant is in jail since 15- 10-2006 i,e, 2 years 8 months and 18 days have been passed without any progress before the learned trial Court. In my opinion, the right of an accused to an expeditious trial has been enshrined in the Constitution of this country where in the present case, the accused has remained behind the bars since the date of his arrest i,e, 15-10-2006 due to no fault on his part. This cannot be justified at all. Reference can be made to the case of Atto alias Atta Muhammad v. The State reported in PLD 2008 Kar.177 and Pearal v. The State, reported in 2005 YLR 358. In the like circumstances, observation made in the case of Anwar Ali and another v. The State 2002 PCr.LJ 186 are very much material which has been reproduced in the case of Ahmed Hussain v. The State, which may be read as under:-- "A charge has to be framed within is a reasonable period. In this case as is apparent from the case diaries it took the trial Court two years to frame a charge. Even if an accused charged with indulgence in activities which are not approved by the society, the society which claims to be looking after the law and order situation and as custodians of law should follow the law in toto, such delay tantamounts to negligence and defeats the very purpose behind which civilized societies pride themselves having legal order which serves as a shining examples to others."
5. "The administration of justice requires that a matter should proceed and be adjudicated expeditiously. If an accused deserved to be hanged for the offence alleged against him, he should be tried without unreasonable delay and executed. It would not be just from any angle of administration of justice that in a case where only two or three witnesses are to be examined, first the accused may be left to languish in jail for years and thereafter try and execute him. This situation is applicable in the present case as well. The applicants are charged with an offence punishable with death; only two or three witnesses are to be examined for final adjudication; but no material progress has been made in the last three years; and nothing can be said to be when their trial will conclude".
6. I am in agreement to the observation referred above and am of the opinion that the accused cannot be kept behind the bars for indefinite period for no fault on his part.
7. ' For the foregoing reasons, applicant Saleem Unar is allowed to be enlarged on bail subject to furnishing solvent surety in the sum of Rs.200,000 and P.R. Bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court.