' ANWAR ZAHEER JAMALI, J.---Petitioner Shabeer son of Ghulam Umar Mugheri, has preferred this criminal petition for leave to appeal against the order dated 15-8-2011 in Criminal Bail Application No,256 of 2011, passed by the High Court of Sindh, whereby his prayer for grant of bail, by availing the benefit of section 3 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Amendment) Act, 2011 (Act VIII of 2011), entitling him to be released on bail on the ground of statutory delay, was declined.
2. The petitioner is one of the. Nominated accused in Crime No,267 of 2007, Police Station Kamber, District Kamber-Shadad Kot registered on 4-11-2007 at 1000 hours regarding commission of the crime, punishable under sections 302, 337-H(2), 148, 149, 120-B, P.P.C. He was arrested in the crime on 14-11-2007, and since then he is in custody. Earlier, several bail applications moved by him for his enlargement on bail, on the merits of the case, were rejected by the trial Court as well as the High Court.
3. Admittedly, the petitioner, till today has remained in custody for a period of over three years and ten months, and his last bail application before the trial Court was dismissed on 8-4-2011. He also remained unsuccessful before the High Court as his Bail Application No,256 of 2011 on the ground of statutory delay, was dismissed, vide order dated 15-8-2011, with the observation that he was responsible for the delay in the proceedings of Sessions Case No,406 of 2007, thus, not entitled for grant of bail even on the ground of statutory delay.
4. We have heard Mr. Mahmood A. Qureshi, learned Advocate Supreme Court for the petitioner, who has taken us to the case diaries relating to the proceedings before the trial Court to show that while passing the impugned order learned Single Judge in Chambers misread the proceedings of the Sessions case in recording his conclusion that applicant was responsible for delay in proceedings of the case. For this purpose, he again made reference to case diaries of various hearings, which confirm his stance that the same were misread in arriving at the conclusion that the delay was caused in the proceedings of the Sessions case due to the conduct of the petitioner or his counsel.
5. Mr. Zafar Ahmad-Khan, learned Additional Prosecutor-General, Sindh, though supported the impugned order, but, at the same time could Not controvert the submissions of learned Advocate Supreme Court for the petitioner that there was hardly any contribution made by the petitioner or his counsel in delaying the disposal of the Sessions Case, which was adjourned on most of the dates of hearings for one reason or the other, not attributable to the petitioner. He also did not dispute that the petitioner was arrested in the crime on 14-11-2007, and since then he is in custody and despite framing of charge in the Sessions Case on 29-7-2008 and amended charge on 13-6-2009, as yet proceedings have not been concluded nor there is any reasonable possibility of conclusion of such Sessions trial in near future.
6. Having considered the submissions made before us by the parties' counsel, we have also perused the newly added provision to section 497, Cr.P.C., vide Act VIII of 2011, which entitles an accused for enlargement on bail, after having remained in custody for a continuous period exceeding two years unless in the opinion of the Court he was found responsible for causing delay during such period or he was a hardened, desperate or dangerous criminal or was accused for an act of terrorism punishable with death or imprisonment for life, which is not the position in the instant case.
7. This being the position, this criminal petition is converted into appeal and allowed. Petitioner is admitted to bail on his furnishing solvent surety' in the sum of Rs, 2,00,000 (Rupees two hundred thousand only) and P.R. Bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court.