' IQBAL HAMEED-UR-REHMAN, C.J.---Petitioner Makhmood son of Mehrban Khan seeks post-arrest bail in case F.I.R. No. 31 dated 4-5-2010, registered under sections 302/452/337-A(ii)/337-F(i)/ 34 P.P.C., at Police Station Nelore, District Islamabad.
2. The prosecution story, in brief, as narrated in the F.I.R. Is that on 4-5-2010 at about 4-45 p.m. An altercation took place between the complainant party and the accused/petitioner. In the meanwhile petitioner trespassed into the house of the complainant along with co-accused by scaling over the wall and gave a shuttering plank of wood blow on the head of the complainant.
When complainant's wife came to rescue him petitioner also inflicted a plank blow on her head who fell down and died at the spot while co-accused Maqsood and Imran gave fists and kicks blows to the deceased wife of the complainant. Co-accused Imran also gave blow of empty box which landed on the backside of complainant's right shoulder. Hence, the instant case.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the instant occurrence is not committed with the customary weapon which is used for the murder of a person; that the petitioner was empty handed at the time of occurrence; that there was an exchange of pelting stones and hot words and the death of the deceased/wife of the complainant was caused due to pelting stones; that the petitioner is behind the bars for the last two years, five months and nine days continuously, as such, he is entitled to the concession of bail as per the amendment in section 497, Cr.P.C. On statutory ground; that the petitioner sought only few adjournments on the ground of compromise and the delay in conclusion of the trial is not on the part of the petitioner rather, the same has been occurred on behalf of the prosecution. It has been further argued that in view of provisos III and IV to section 497, Cr.P.C. The petitioner deserves enlargement on bail; that the petitioner is previous non-convict and non-record holder; that the petitioner is not a hardened criminal and the occurrence took place accidentally. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the cases of Sabir Hussain v. The State (1980 PCr.LJ 323 (Lahore), Panial v. The State (1990 PCr.LJ 2051 (Karachi)) and Darya Khan v. Shamman and 2 others (1984 PCr.LJ 1301 (Karachi)).
4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the complainant contended that the petitioner is nominated in the F.I.R. With specific role; that it is a daylight occurrence and there is no probability of mistake in identifying the petitioner; that the attack upon the complainant party was made by the petitioner and others thrice; that after receiving injury on her vital part i.e. Head the deceased gave her life at the spot within a few minutes; that the petitioner himself led to the recovery of weapon of offence which was blood-stained; that the order sheet depicts that the petitioner's side sought as many as nineteen adjournments, as such, the delay in conclusion of trial cannot be attributed only on the part of the prosecution; that in the present circumstances, the petitioner cannot seek bail on statutory ground; that the petitioner cook several dates only for effecting compromise which was nothing but a delaying tactic. Hence, the petitioner is not entitled to the concession of bail. Learned counsel for the complainant has relied upon the cases of Muhammad and 3 others v. The State (1997 M LD 1576) (Lahore).
5. Learned Deputy Attorney-General contended that weapon of offence has been recovered from the petitioner; that the report of Chemical Examiner is positive; that statements of the witnesses still support the prosecution story; that the offence is a heinous one and has been committed in a pitiless manner.
6. Arguments of learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned counsel for the complainant and Deputy Attorney-General heard. Record perused.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioner has sought the grant of post-arrest bail of the petitioner mainly on statutory ground in view proviso III to section 497, Cr.P.C. In this regard both the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned counsel for the complainant have adverted the attention of the Court to minutely examine the order sheets of the trial Court. It is quite apparent from the examination of the order sheets that the delay in conclusion of trial cannot be solely attributed to the prosecution. The accused party is not also absolved from causing the delay in conclusion of trial, as such, when the trial has commenced and can be concluded in an expeditious manner by the learned trial Court, I would desist from exercising discretionary relief of granting bail to the petitioner. Therefore, in the present scenario statutory ground cannot be pressed into service in the instant case.
8. However, it would be in the interest of justice that a direction be given to the trial Court for conclusion of the trial expeditiously. Therefore, the learned trial Court is directed to expeditiously conclude the trial of this case within a period of three months.
9. With the above direction, the instant post-arrest bail application is disposed of.