' SHAHID HAMEED DAR, J.---Fayaz Hussain (petitioner) seeks bail-after-arrest in case F.I.R. No,744 of 2012, dated 28-7-2012, registered for an offence under section 406 P.P.C., at Police Station Shad Bagh, Lahore.
2. Precisely, the prosecution case as narrated by Muhammad Nadeem (complainant) is that he runs the business of processing hides of the animals at New Shad Bagh Lahore, where traders, from all over Pakistan, come to purchase them; Fayaz Hussain (petitioner) and his four co-accused visited him at 3:00 p.m. On 1-5-2012 and struck a deal to purchase hides, valuing at Rs,41,20,000 on a deferred payment with the promise to pay it off within two days; the accused promised to return the said consignment to him if they failed to pay cost thereof.
3. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record, it is observed that the petitioner's first post-arrest-bail application (Criminal Miscellaneous No, 15052-B of 2012) was dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 6-12-2012, after it had been argued at full length. The petitioner's second application (Criminal Miscellaneous No,2263-B of 2013) on the subject was also disposed of in the same fashion vide order dated 27-2-2013 with a direction to the learned trial court to conclude the trial within three months from the date of receipt of the said order. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the direction of this Court for conclusion of the trial has gone begging as prosecution did not cooperate with the trial court and sought repeated adjournments on different pretexts. Learned counsel has submitted copies of the interlocutory orders, passed by the learned trial court during trial of the accused-petitioner to support his assertion. Learned counsel for the complainant is however, opposes with the submission that it was the accused-petitioner and his co-accused who did not let the trial court achieve the objective within aforesaid period of time but he has failed to hint at any such order which may endorse his submission. The record reveals that the learned trial court has succeeded in recording statements of only two prosecution witnesses so far out of a tally of ten which means that aforesaid direction of this Court has not been complied with in letter and spirit. I have gone through the interim orders passed by the learned trial court between 23-2-2013 to 11-6-2013 and I do not find that the accused-petitioner or any other person acting on his behalf ever showed indolence during trial rather, the learned trial court issued non-bailable warrants of arrest of the prosecution witnesses A on 11-2-2013. The offence, the petitioner faces, is certainly not hit by the prohibitory clause of section 497(1), Cr.P.C. The direction passed by this Court on 27-2-2013 does not appear to have been complied with mainly for the fault of the prosecution. The petitioner was taken into custody on 13- 8-2012 and he has been languishing in jail lever-since. No one can be left to rot in jail for an indefinite period of time only to satisfy the whimsical grudge of the complainant.
4. Therefore, the instant petition is accepted and petitioner is admitted to post-arrest-bail subject to furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs,2,00,000 with one surety in the like amount to the learned trial Court.