Through this 3rd petition, petitioner Shamas-ud-Din seeks post arrest bail in case FIR No, 17 dated 1.03.2010 under Sections 324, 337F(v), 337F(iv) & 337F(iii)/34, PPC registered at Police Station Chikrala District Mianwali. His 1st bail application i,e, Crl. Misc. No, 7752-B of 2011 was dismissed having been withdrawn whereas his 2nd bail petition i,e, Crl.Misc.No, 14549-B of 2012 was dismissed on merits on 21.11.2011.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that he urges only the statutory ground of delay in the trial of the petitioner; that the petitioner was arrested in this case on 05.04.2011 and he is continuously behind the bars since then but his trial has yet not been concluded without any fault on his part or any other person acting on his behalf. Further contends that if the adjournments sought on behalf of the petitioner are excluded from the consideration even then the period of his incarceration exceeds one year and that the petitioner has no -previous criminal record.
3. On the other hand learned Deputy Prosecutor General assisted by learned counsel for the complainant while opposing this bail application contends that the prosecution witnesses have regularly been appearing before the learned trial Court, however, for the reasons beyond the control of the prosecution, evidence could not be recorded, therefore, delay in conclusion of trial cannot be attributed to the complainant; that on some of the dates of hearing, witnesses were present but adjournments were sought on behalf of the petitioner, hence, he is not entitled for bail even on the ground of statutory delay in his trial.
4. Heard. Record perused.
5. The petitioner was arrested in this case on 05.04.2011 and since then he is continuously behind the bars without any substantive progress in his trial. Even not a single prosecution witness has so far been recorded. The certified copy of the order sheet of the learned trial Court produced by the learned counsel for the petitioner, reflects that only three adjournments were sought on behalf of the petitioner and if the said period is excluded from the consideration even then his incarceration period exceeds one year. There is nothing on record to suggest that case of the petitioner falls within the ambit of 7th proviso to Section 497, Cr.P.C. Learned law officer after consulting the record confirms that the petitioner has no previous criminal record. As the delay in conclusion of the trial of the petitioner cannot be attributed to him or any other person acting on his behalf in any manner whatsoever, therefore, without commenting upon the merits the case, keeping in view the 6th proviso to Section 497, Cr.P.C., I admit him to bail subject to his furnishing bail bond in the sum of Rs, 2,00,000/- (Rupees two hundred thousand only) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court.