' MALIK HAQ NAWAZ, J.---The petitioner is facing trial on the basis of FIR No,257/11 registered under sections 302/34, 21-L, 6/7 ATA at Police Station City Gilgit.
2. Precisely the facts of the case are that one Sher Zaman son of Abdul Manan lodged FIR, referred above regarding murder of his father by some unknown persons on 05.09.2011. The complainant did not raise finger against anybody and the murder was stated to be the result and outcome of sectarian hatred and violence prevailing in the area.
3. The petitioner was later on arrested in the instant case and after completion of necessary investigation he was sent to judicial lock up to face trial.
4. The petitioner applied for post arrest bail before the learned trial Court which was refused vide order dated 29.6.2015.
5. The petitioner being dissatisfied from the verdict of trial Court has come to this Court for concession of bail.
6. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted at bar that the petitioner has been involved in the instant case due to mala fides of complainant and local police and the police with active connivance of complainant managed and planted self-procured evidence, which even if believed in toto will not be sufficient to connect the petitioner with the crime. The learned counsel further submitted that some of the P.Ws. Examined in the trial Court have not supported the prosecution case and prosecution is only in possession of 21-H against the accused, which is not a worth reliance evidence in the eyes of law.
7. On the other hand, when confronted the learned Dy. A.G. Stated that there is abundant evidence against the petitioner. He is prima facie linked with the offence and he also confessed his guilt, before Senior Superintendent of Police Gilgit in the shape of 21-H and no reasons, have been shown for false involvement of the petitioner in the crime. The learned Dy. A.G., further stated that trial of the case is in progress and now it is settled practice of the superior Courts that when trial of a case is in progress, the bail petitions are not decided on merits to avoid prejudice to either party.
8. We heard the valuable arguments of both the parties and perused the record as well as reports of the trial Court, which was requisitioned vide order dated 4.5.2016. The learned trial Court has attributed delay to the counsel for the petitioner. We are afraid and observe that the learned trial Court has not followed the provisions of relevant law in letter and spirit of sections 19(7) and 19 (8) wherein it is provided that no adjournment for more than 2 days will be allowed to the accused and in case of non-appearance of the counsel of the accused a counsel on State expenses shall be appointed to avoid delay in disposal of cases. From the details provided by the trial Court it seems that adjournments have granted extending over a period of months, which attitude of the trial Court is depreciated. There is a provision in ATA-1997, that in case of such long adjournment, necessary administrative action shall be instituted against the trial Judge. We take exception of the situation and direct the trial Judge to conduct trial of the cases in accordance with the mandatory provisions of law. The trial Court must know that non-compliance of mandatory provisions may expose him to disciplinary action by this Court.
9. Speedy and fair trial is an inherited right of accused and guaranteed by the Constitution of Pakistan as well as by part-II of Gilgit-Baltistan (Self-Empowerment and Governance) Order 2009 and liberty of a person cannot be curtailed except in accordance with law. We have come across many instances, while hearing cases of Anti-Terrorism, where some cases are taken up by the trial Court on day to day basis and some cases are lingering on since years. We despite our critical analysis could not understand the selective justice and pick and choose criteria by the trial Judge.
Every heinous case striking a terror and creating a fear in the Society or a section of Society is registered under Anti-Terrorism Act but there is no discriminatory provision, which may be giving a sweet discretion to the trial Court to pick and choose the cases of his choice for trial on priority basis. We restrain ourselves to initiate any action against the above stated delinquency on the part of trial Judge and leave the matter to be dealt with by the Chief Secretary as for Administrative purpose, the Court of Anti-Terrorism is under the administrative control of the Provincial Government. However, it, is made clear that this Court will guard the rights of accused and under trial prisoners jealously, which is our prime duty as custodian of law.
10. The challan of the instant case was filed on 3.4.2013 and after laps of over 3 years no substantial progress have been made towards conclusion of trial, which has forced us to exercise our discretion in favour of the petitioner, while considering the question of bail.
11. We in the result of above discussion vide our shot order dated 23.6.2016 allowed bail to the petitioner which reads:-- "The instant bail petition is accepted. The petitioner/accused be released on bail subject to furnishing his bail bonds in the sum of Rs, 1,00,0000/- (Rupees ten lac only) with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of trial Court"
12. A copy of this judgment be sent to Chief Secretary Gilgit-Baltistan for information/compliance.
The action taken in this regard will be intimated to the Registrar of this Court, who will open a separate file on administrative side and on receipt of compliance report, the same will be placed before us in the Chamber for our perusal and appropriate orders, deemed necessary in the interest of justice.
13. The instant petition is disposed of accordingly. File.