'CH. IFTIKHAR HUSSAIN, J.---Petitioner Sardar Ali through the instant petition has sought for post- arrest bail in case F.I.R. No,83, registered under sections 324, 337-A(i), 337-A(ii), 148, 149, P. P. C., with Police Station Sadar Renala Khurd, District Okara on 26-2-2008.
2. The facts of the case have been recorded in the order dated 19-2-2009, by his lordship Mr. Justice Ali Hassan Rizvi, as he then was, in the petitioner's earlier bail petition. I, therefore, avoid to repeat the same here. It has now mainly been contended on his behalf that he is behind the bars for the last about 17 months but so far the challan even has not been submitted in Court and this delay in trial has given rise to a fresh cause/ground for bail to him as speedy trial is right of every accused and the same cannot be denied to him unless there is a legitimate ground or circumstance in that behalf. In support of this plea reliance has been placed on the cases of Muhammad Iqbal alias Bali v. The State 2008 YLR 864 and Haji Muhammad Hanif alias Arif v. The State 2006 PCr.LJ 1839.
3. Converse to that, the learned Deputy Prosecutor General assisted by the learned counsel for the complainant has opposed the petition on the ground that he (petitioner) was earlier refused bail on merits by his lordship Ali Hassan Rizvi, J., on 19-2-2009, as he then was, and he so now does not deserve bail on merits; that as regards the plea of delay in trial, the same is not available to him as in fact his side had occasioned the delay on one pretext or the other by way of absence from the learned trial Court from time to time; and that his son, who is also his co-accused was released on bail and he thereafter Las repeated the offence and there is every likelihood that he will do so in case of release on bail.
4. I have carefully considered the submissions made on behalf of the parties. Record perused.
5. The petitioner earlier was refused bail on merits on 19-20-2009, by my above said learned brother. I, therefore, avoid to touch the merits of his case now.
6. As is obvious from the above position now fresh ground of delay in trial has been raised from his side for bail. It has been submitted on his behalf that he is behind the bars for the last about 17 months and so far even challan has not been submitted in Court against him.
7. Before proceeding further, I would like to mention here that there cannot quarrel to the proposition that speedy trial is right of every accused. There is also no denial to the fact that he is behind the bars for the last about 17 months as date of his arrest has been mentioned in the record as 11-3-2008 and it is now August, 2009. So the period of A his detention is spread over about 17 months.
8. The fact also remains that so far challan has not been submitted in Court against him. Hence, apparently, I don't see any force in the contention from the other side that in fact they have occasioned the delay in trial. Had there been challan before the Court against them, and had anybody from them absented from the Court, then it could be validly said that the delay in trial is attributable to them. The non-submission of challan during such a long period is simply a fault on the part of the prosecution. I am astonished that even the learned trial Court has not taken steps to remedy the situation. The prolonged agony of trial certainly can be said to be a matter/case of hardship.
9. In the case of Muhammad Iqbal alias Bali v. The State 2008 YLR 864, the Honourable Chief Justice has been pleased to observe as follows vis-a-vis the plea of bail of accused in that case:--- "Speedy trial is a right of an accused person who cannot be kept in jail for an indefinite period."
'His lordship on that plea has been pleased to allow bail to the accused, who was behind the bars for a period of one year and ten months. The present petitioner is stated to be behind the bars for about one year and seven months. The difference of period of the detention in the two situations/cases is not much.
10. In the case of Muhammad Hanif alias Arif v. The State 2006 PCr.LJ 1839 the accused was allowed bail due to delay in trial against him. In that case the accused was behind the bars for about nine years. This is so mentioned for all fairness and in accordance with the spirit of justice. However, it may be mentioned here that his lordship in that case has allowed bail to the petitioner/accused on the ground of delay in conclusion of his trial. Hence, respectfully relying on the view expressed in that case, I find that the petitioner has made a fresh ground for bail to him i.e, delay in trial.
11. The petition is, therefore, accepted and he is allowed bail in the sum of Rs,100,000 with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court.
12. The learned trial Court is expected to expedite the conclusion of the trial as much as possible but preferably within a period of three months from the receipt of this order to it under intimation to the Deputy Registrar (Judicial) of this Court.
13. It may also be mentioned here that as regards the apprehension of the complainant's side that in case of release, he (petitioner) may repeat the offence or tamper with the prosecution evidence, I am afraid that law definitely will take it's course in such an eventuality.
14. The learned Trial Court is directed to take steps to expedite the submission of challan. The learned Deputy Prosecutor General is also directed to make all efforts in that direction.
15. A copy of this order be also sent to DPO, Okara for his information and necessary action at his end in that regard under intimation again to the Deputy Registrar (Judicial) of this Court. revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.