' MUHAMMAD TASNIM, J.---Applicants are booked in Crime No,58 of 2009, under sections 302/324/109/34, P.P.C., Police Station Sohrab Goth. Applicants, in the first place, applied for bail before the learned III- Additional Sessions Judge, Malir, who vide his order dated 1st July, 2011 had dismissed the bail application filed by the applicants.
2. The facts of prosecution, as setout in the F.I.R., are that deceased Muhammad Ashraf Agha was real paternal cousin of the complainant and there was dispute in between deceased and his neighbouring shopkeeper Abdul Sattar and his sons over a transaction of "Hazrat Hotel" and faisla was made by Ashraf Agha being the President of ANP and due to such faisla accused persons were annoyed with him and extended threats of murder. On 21-1-2009 deceased Ashraf Agha along with one Abdullah came running at the office of Fruit Union, where complainant was already present with his friends. Ashraf Agha received phone of Ashraf son of Abdul Sattar and then Ashraf Agha went at the shop of Abdul Sattar, where Abdul Sattar asked his sons to kill him, whereupon Ashraf son of Abdul Sattar took out his pistol and other one caught hold of son of complainant Ashraf Agha. Ashraf son of Abdul Sattar fired at the temporal region of Ashraf Agha, who fell down on the table and accused also fired straightly upon the complainant in order to murder him, but complainant ran away and then accused party also escaped away in a car. Complainant came back at the shop of Abdul Sattar and saw that Ashraf Agha was lying on the table and: was unconscious and blood was oozing from his mouth, nose and head. Complainant took deceased Ashraf Agha to hospital, where he was declared dead. In the circumstances, F.i.R was lodged.
3. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that he presses bail application only on statutory ground and proviso inserted in section 497, Cr.P.C. By an Act No,VIII of 2011 dated 21-4-2011.
Learned counsel says that he has filed diary sheets of the learned trial Court and there is no delay thoroughout from the date of framing of the charge till date on the part of the applicants. He further says that more than two years and seven months have lapsed but trial has not proceeded till date. Learned counsel further says that under the newly added proviso it has been stated that who being accused of an offence punishable with death, has been detained for such offence for a continuous period exceeding two years he should be enlarged on bail. Learned counsel further submits that applicants are not previously convicted offenders for an offence punishable with death or imprisonment for life or they are hardened, desperate or dangerous criminals or are accused of an act of terrorism punishable with death or imprisonment for life. He further says that the case of the applicants/ accused falls under the above referred proviso and they may be enlarged on bail on statutory ground.
4. On the other hand learned A.P.G. Has stated that he will not oppose this bail due to statutory provision. He also submits that diary sheet has been examined by him in Court, but delay is not attributable to the present applicants. Learned A.P.G. Further admits that more than two years have passed and the present applicants are behind the bars. It is also admitted by the learned A.P.G.
That applicants are neither previously convicted offenders for an offence punishable with death or imprisonment for life nor they are hardened, desperate or dangerous criminals or are accused of an act of terrorism punishable with death or imprisonment for life.
5. For the convenience sake newly added proviso in section 497, Cr.P.C. Vide Act No,VIII of 2011, dated 21-4-2011 are quoted hereunder:-- "Provided further that the Court shall, except where it is of the opinion that the delay in the trial of the accused has been occasioned by an act or omission of the accused or any other person acting on his behalf, direct that any person shall be released on bail--
(a) Who, being accused of any offence not punishable with death, has been detained for such offence for a continuous period- exceeding one year or in case of a woman exceeding six months and whose trial for such offence has not concluded; or
(b) Who being accused of an offence. Punishable with death, has been detained for such offence for a continuous period exceeding two years and in case of a woman exceeding one year and whose trial for such offence has not concluded: Provided further that the provisions of the foregoing proviso shall not apply to a previously.
Convicted offender for an offence punishable with death or imprisonment for life or to a person who, in the opinion of the Court, is a hardened, desperate or dangerous criminal or is accused of an act of terrorism punishable with death or imprisonment for life".
6. The examination of the diary-sheet of the learned trial Court shows that delay in trial is not attributable to the applicants. It is also noted that case of the applicant falls under the above quoted proviso in section 497, Cr.P.C. And as per prosecution they are not previously convicted offenders for an offence punishable with death or imprisonment for life or they are hardened, desperate or dangerous criminals or are accused of an act of terrorism punishable with death or imprisonment for life.
7. In this view of the matter, the present applicants are admitted to bail on statutory ground on their furnishing solvent surety in the sum of Rs,5,00,000 (Rupees Five Lacs) each and P.R bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of learned trial 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.