' ABDUL RASOOL MEMON, J.---The applicant Abdul Hayee booked in Crime No.120/2013 under sections 364, 337-J, 109, 148, 149, P.P.C. Of Police Station Civil Lines, seeks post arrest bail.
2. Brief facts of the prosecution case as disclosed by complainant Mst.Kousar Parveen in FIR are that she owns a plot situated in Gulshane-Iqbal, Karachi. Before the registration of the FIR, one Musrat Hussain, brother of Aziz Hussain alias Major Isran, was murdered, in which brother of complainant, namely, Shahid was nominated and he is in the jail in the said murder case.
Thereafter, it is alleged that Aziz Hussain was pressurizing the complainant to give the said plot to him else complainant party would face the consequences. It is alleged in the FIR that sister of complainant, namely, Sarwat alias Pappi had power of attorney of the same plot. On 12.10.2013 the sisters of the complainant, namely, Taswar alias Nooni and Sarwat alias Pappi came from Karachi to applicant/accused Abdul Hayee and stayed in his house situated at Hyderi Mohalla, Larkana as guests. Complainant was on contact with sisters on the phone. On 15.10.2013, communication of the sisters was disconnected with the complainant and applicant Abdul Hayee was also not attending her calls. Thereafter, it is alleged that complainant during the late hours of the night came in the house of Abdul Hayee, where applicant Abdul Hayee and his sisters Mst. Fatima and Mst. Zakia were present. Complainant inquired them about her sisters, namely, Taswar and Sarwat. They exchanged hot words with the complainant and replied that both ladies were not with them.
Complainant went to the village and narrated the facts to Ali Dino and Rasool Bux. They told to the complainant that on 15.10.2013, they had gone to the Larkana with some work, when they reached in front of the house of applicant Abdul Hayee, it was 3.00 p.m., they saw applicant Abdul Hayee, his mother Mst. Zakia and sister Fatima, Aziz Hussain alias Major and two unidentified persons, they were removing Mst. Taswa r alias Nooni and Mst. Sarwat alias Pappi from the house, both were unconscious. Both ladies were made to sit on the rear seat of white coloured car. Ifter that, Abdul Hayee, his mother Zakia and sister Fatima went back to the home. After receiving such information, complainant went to the applicant Abdul Hayee and demanded return of the sisters. He refused and stated that he has given his sisters to Aziz Hussain alias Major Isran and he was unable to return them back. Complainant went to the police station and lodged such report. It is alleged that applicant Abdul Hayee and others abducted her sisters in order that such ladies may be murdered over the dispute of the land. FIR was recorded vide Crime No.120/2013 on 16.10.2013, at 1500 hours, under sections 364, 337-J, 109, 148, 149, P.P C.
3. Thereafter present applicant moved application before the trial court on merits and the same was dismissed and the order was assailed before this Court in Cr. B.A No.S7567/2013, the same was rejected with the following observations:-- "7. From the perusal of the FIR and 161, Cr.P.C. Statements of P.Ws, it transpires that applicant/accused has been named in the FIR with specific role that he had removed both ladies (now deceased) from his house in a car. Such incident was witnessed by P.Ws. Ali Dino and Rasool Bux. Thereafter, both ladies were subsequently murdered and such FIR bearing crime No.35/2013 was lodged on the same day viz, 16.10.2013 at 2200 hours, at Police Station Rasheed Wagan, under Sections 302, 148, 149, 337-H(2), P.P.C. P.Ws. Ali Dino and Rasool Bux in their 161, Cr.P.C. Statements have fully implicated the applicant/ accused in the. Commission of the offence. There is no legal force in the contention of learned counsel for the applicant/ accused that case of applicant Abdul Hayee is identical to the case of co-accused Mst. Zakia and Mst. Ghulam Fatima alias Babli, who have been granted bail by trial Court, for the reasons that both deceased stayed in the house of the applicant/accused Abdul Hayee, who switched off his phone when the complainant contacted him and played vital role in the incident. Prima facie, there are reasonable grounds for believing that applicant/accused has committed offence, which falls within the prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C. No case for bail to applicant/accused is made out. Above-cited authorities are quite distinguishable from the facts and circumstances of the instant case. Bail application is without merit. The same is dismissed."
4. The learned counsel submits that there were two eye-witnesses namely Ali Dino and Rasool Bux alias Bhutto who, per prosecution, have seen the present applicant Abdul Hayee while taking the deceased in his car. Out of them, Ali Dino was given up by the prosecution on the basis of application moved by the complainant while the other eye-witness is said to have gone to Dubai.
Thereafter the applicant moved another bail application to the trial Court which was dismissed vide order dated 13.11.2014. The same order was assailed before this Court in Crl.B.A No.S-509/2014 and this Court dismissed the bail application with directions to the trial Court to record statement said witness Rasool Bux alias Bhutto within two months. Thereafter the applicant was set at liberty to move fresh bail application. Per learned counsel the said order of directions of two months was not complied with and the applicant moved another application for grant of bail on the ground of noncompliance of the order of this Court. That too was rejected vide order dated 16.2.2015. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is behind the bars since last about 22 months and twice the directions are issued to the trial Court but the trial of this case has not yet been concluded and the directions of this Court vide order dated 05.12.2014 in Cr.B.A No.S-509/2014 and 17.6.2015 in Crl.Misc. Application No.S-117/2014 have not been complied with, therefore, the applicant is entitled to bail on the ground of non-compliance of order of this Court for conclusion of trial.
5. Learned counsel for the complainant submits that trial could not be concluded for the reasons that the matter was being adjourned mostly on the ground that the Presiding Officer was on leave or sometimes there was strike otherwise complainant is ready to proceed with the case without fail. He further submits that delay is not attributed to the complainant and non-compliance of the order would not give a cause to the trial Court to grant bail on merits.
6. Learned APG contended that the either bail could be granted on merits or on the ground of statutory delay. There is no other ground for grant of bail. He prays for dismissal of this application.
7. I have given careful consideration to the arguments of the learned counsel and gone through the relevant papers on record. It is settled proposition of the law that in criminal cases there is no universal rule of application which can be applied to every case as facts and circumstances of each case will determine its fate. In this regard reliance may be placed on a case reported in Nazar Muhammad v. The State ( PLD 1978 SC 236) and Safdar Abbas v. The State (PLD 1987 SC 467). Of course, the Bail Application as well as Crl. Misc. Application filed on behalf of the applicant were disposed of with directions to examine material witnesses within two months but failure to examine the said witnesses with prescribed period would not automatically entitle the accused to bail. In this respect I am fortified by the case of Muhammad Nawaz alias Deeno and another v. The State (2003 M LD 79) and Abdul Qadir Sahar v. The State (PLD 2004 Kar. 287). In view of the above case law the contention raised by learned counsel for the applicant for grant of bail on the ground of non-compliance of the directions given in earlier bail application as well as Crl. Misc. Application is devoid of force. In the circumstances the applicant is not entitled for bail on the ground of non- compliance of directions of this Court. However, it appears that complainant is also not producing the witnesses before the trial Court. The counsel for the complainant is directed to produce the eye-witness on the next date before the trial Court and t trial Court proceed with the case expeditiously and preferably conclude the trial within a period of three months. However, this order will not bar the applicant from moving application on any other ground available to him with passage of time. This criminal bail application stands disposed of accordingly.