1. ' NISAR MUHAMMAD SHAIKH, J.---The applicants Nabidad, Mir Hassan and Illahi Bux have approached this Court for post arrest bail in connection with Crime No,37 of 2008 of Police Station, Kazi Ahmed under sections 302, 324, 337-H(ii), 148 and 149 P.P.C. Their earlier bail application was rejected vide order dated 28-7-2011 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Hyderabad.
2. ' As per the F.I.R. Lodged on 24-3-2008 at 4-00 p.m. By complainant Ali Nawaz Brohi, the incident took place on 22-3-2008 at 2-00 p.m. When the present applicants and others duly armed with fire arm weapons, fired with T.T. Pistols upon the deceased Haji Muhammad Ramzan, Advocate and his Munshi Ghulam Nabi and committed their murders on the pretext that they were conducting the cases of their opposite party. At the time of such incident, one Shakeel Ahmed, cleaner of the Van in which the deceased were going, also sustained firearm injuries.
3. ' The learned counsel for the applicants contends that the applicants are entitled for the concession of bail on statutory ground of delay in trial of the case. He submits that for the last 31/2 years the applicants are in jail since 5-4-2008 arid 13-4-2008 respectively and the charge was framed on 13-4-2010, but the prosecution has examined so far, only two witnesses, therefore, the applicants are entitled for the concession of bail on such ground. In this connection, he placed reliance on the cases reported as 1995 PCr.LJ 1682, 1991 PCr.LJ 534, 2006 YLR 2242, PLD 1997 Karachi 156, 2000 SCMR 79 and 2011 YLR 2297.
4. ' On the other hand, learned counsel, appearing for the complainant, relying upon the cases reported as 2001 YLR (Karachi)- 859, 2002 SCMR 1381, 2004 SCMR 860, 1998 SCMR 897, 2002 PCr.LJ 963 and 2004 SCMR 1160, contended that it was a heinous crime of brutal murder of two persons, out of whom one was an Advocate and other was his Munshi and they were being prevented from performing their professional duty and thus the applicants, with the help of co-accused, committed the murder of these persons after issuing threats to them for committing their murder, therefore, the applicants being hardened, desperate and dangerous criminals are not entilied for the concession of bail even on statutory ground of delay. He submits that on many occasions, the delay in trial of the case was attributed to the applicants party, as almost on all dates of hearing, the complainant as well as his witnesses remained present for their evidence, but the same could not be recorded as the learned counsel for the applicants avoided to proceed the case and also moved adjournment applications. He further submits that the complainant party is still prepared to adduce the remaining evidence within a shortest possible time and there will be no delay on the part of the complainant party. He further submits that if the period of conclusion of the trial is commuted from the date, when the charge was framed, then still the period of two years is not completed, therefore, the present application is pre-mature and is liable to be dismissed.
5. ' Whereas the learned A.P.-G. For the State relying upon the cases reported as PLD 1982 SC 424 and 1991 PCr.LJ 264, contended that though the period of two years stands completed, as the applicants are in jail since April, 2008, yet they are not entitled for the concession of bail, as the previous provisions of section 497, Cr.P.C. Are to be read together being inter-connected, as such, third proviso to section 497(1), Cr.P.C. Provided concession for grant of bail on completion of statutory period of delay but the fourth proviso to the same section prohibited the grant of bail, which could only be granted on certain conditions and, therefore, he also opposed the grant of bail to the applicants.
6. ' I have considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and A.P.-G. And also perused the relevant record as well as case laws as relied upon by them.
7. ' It appears that this is very hotly contested case of murder, in which two persons were murdered at a Van Stop of National Highway and the motive of commission of such murder, as alleged in the very F.I.R., is that the deceased persons were pursuing/dealing/conducting the cases of the complainant party, despite they were prevented from A doing so by, the applicants/accused party.
8. According to the learned counsel for the complainant, this very fact itself is sufficient to support the case of the prosecution that the applicants were dangerous and hardened criminals and are not entitled for the concession of bail. In this connection, he relied upon the various authorities including the case of SAIN RAKHIO v. STATE (2001 YLR-859) in which the learned Division Bench of this Court declined the relief of bail on the ground of statutory delay for the reasons, inter alia, that the accused along with his companions committed the murder of the deceased in a very callous and brutal manner and such incident occurred in broad daylight in the heart of the town and thus, such act of the accused was not only found to be of "terrorism", but accused also appeared to be a dangerous person, therefore, he was held disentitled for the grant of bail. Moreover, the report of Superintendent Jail dated 27-7-2011 filed together with this bail application, itself shows that the applicants are also involved in another case of murder, recently registered, against them as Crime No,35 of 2011 at Police Station, Baldia, Hyderabad.
9. ' Apart from the above, the learned Sessions Judge has mentioned in his order that on many dates the delay in trial of the case was B attributed to applicants party. But, during the course of arguments, it appeared that on all such dates the applicants or their Advocate were not at fault in delaying the proceedings of the case, however, on four dates i.e, 15-5-2010, 11-8-2010, 7-9-2010 and 13-9-2011 the delay was clearly attributed to the applicants or their advocate, as on such dates the complainant and his witnesses were in attendance for their evidence before the trial Court. In this connection, the learned counsel for the complainant has relied upon the same reported case 2001 YLR 859, which also shows that the contention of learned counsel for the applicant for grant of bail on the ground of two years delay in conclusion of the trial, was repelled for the reason that on four occasions the case could not proceed due to the act or omission of the accused and, therefore, it was held that the Court for the purpose of grant of bail on the ground of statutory delay could not add or subtract such period.
10. ' In view of the above, the applicants do not appear entitled for the concession of bail at this stage of the case as the provisions for grant of bail on the ground of statutory delay, are not attracted fully and as such, the present bail application of the applicants is hereby dismissed with, observation that the applicants shall be at liberty to repeat their bail application, to be decided by the trial Court after hearing the parties, when the applicants plea for grant of bail on statutory ground of delay will be found matured or after recording the evidence of material P. Ws. When the applicants find this case to be fit one for grant of bail on its merit. In this connection, the learned trial Court is also directed to conclude recording the evidence of prosecution witnesses within a period of four months after receipt of this order.