The petitioner Irfan alias Shani seeks post arrest bail in case FIR No, 280 dated 25.03.2009 under Sections 302/392/411, PPC registered at Police Station Gulgasht Multan.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the petitioner is behind the bars for the last more than 4 years whereas the trial has not concluded. The co-accused Ali Abbas has already been granted post arrest bail by this Court vide order dated 06.12.2012. The learned counsel maintained that merely registration of some cases against the petitioner cannot be made basis for refusal of bail as he is a previous non-convict. Although some adjournments were granted at the request of the petitioner or the counsel for the co-accused but even if the said period is excluded the petitioner is entitled to be released on bail on satutory ground. The learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to 2012 YLR 541 (Lahore) [Muhammad Naveed Basheer and another versus The State and another], 2012 YLR 24 (Lahore) [Yasin versus The State and another], 2012 PSC (Crl.)
214 [Jafar Crz> Jafari versus The State] and ' 2002 SCM R 947 [Pir Nazir Ahmad Shah versus Government of Pakistan through Secretary, States and Frontier Regions Division, Islamabad and 2 others] in support of his arguments.
3. The learned DPG assisted by the learned counsel for the complainant has vehemently opposed the petition and argued that the petitioner is responsible for the delay in disposal of the case so he is not entitled to be released on bail on statutory ground. The petitioner has previous record and he is involved in several cases, so he does not deserve to be released on bail.
4. I have considered the arguments advanced from both the sides and perused the record.
5. Although some cases have been registered against the petitioner but merely registration of cases is no ground for refusal of bail if on merits he is entitled to it. The petitioner is admittedly not a previous convict. Although the trial is in progress but it may take some more time to be concluded. Both the parties are responsible for delay in disposal of the case but if the period of adjournments sought by the petitioner or his counsel is excluded his period of detention after excluding that time comes to more than 2 years. So keeping in view all the facts and circumstances of the case and detention of the petitioner since 04.04.2009 he is admitted to bail subject to his furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs,5,00,000/- with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court.
6. It is however clarified that the observations made herein are tentative in nature and shall have no effect on the merits of the case.