' SAYYED MAZAHAR ALI AKBAR NAQVI, J.---Through this petition filed under section 497, Cr.P.C., the petitioner seeks his post arrest bail in case bearing FIR No,470/2013, dated 21.09.2013, offence under sections 302, 436, 148, 149, 109, 427, P.P.C., registered with Police Station Mustafabad, District Kasur, at the instance of the complainant, Muhammad Riaz. This petition has been moved by the petitioner on the ground of elapse of statutory period.
2. It is pertinent to mention here that this is the second petition for post arrest bail whereas earlier petition of the petitioner bearing Crl.Mise.No,13819/B/2014 seeking his post arrest bail was dismissed while touching upon the merits of the case vide order dated 18.11.2014. The said order was assailed by the petitioner before the august Supreme Court of Pakistan through Criminal Petition No, 617 of 2014 and the same was dismissed as not pressed vide order dated 18.12.2014.
3. The facts of this case have already been mentioned in the order dated 18.11.2014, passed by this Court in Crl.Misc.No,13819/B/2014, therefore, there is no need to repeat the same.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner is behind the bars since 11.11.2013 and the statutory period has already elapsed but the trial has not been concluded so far, however, only formal witnesses have been examined. Further contends that the delay in conclusion of the trial is not attributed to the petitioner whereas adjournments were sought by the other accused on one pretext or the other, therefore, the petitioner can claim bail on the ground of statutory delay.
5. On the other hand, learned Deputy Prosecutor General assisted by learned counsel for the complainant vehemently opposes this petition and has stated that the prosecution has produced the evidence and statements of five prosecution witnesses have been recorded but the defence has failed to cross-examine them seeking adjournments on different pretext for cross- examination, therefore, the petitioner is not entitled to the relief sought for.
6. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Deputy Prosecutor General assisted by learned counsel for the complainant and have gone through the available record.
7. The ground of statutory delay for grant of post arrest bail has been provided under section. 497 of Criminal Procedure Code, 1898 ("Cr.P.C.), which provides that:-- "497. When bail may be taken in cases of non-bailable offence.---(1) When any person accused of non-bailable offence is arrested or detained without warrant by an officer-in-charge of a police station, or appears or is brought before a Court, he may be released on bail, but he shall not be so released if there appears reasonable grounds for believing that he has been guilty of an offence punishable with death or [imprisonment for life or imprisonment for ten years].
' Provided that the Court may direct any person under the age of sixteen years [or any woman] or any sick or infirm person accused of such an offence be released on bail.
' Second, third and fourth provisos as added by Ordinance V of 2010 omitted by Act VIII of 2011.
' Provided further that a person accused of an offence as aforesaid shall not be released on bail unless prosecution has been given notice to show cause why he should not be so released.
' Provided further that the Court shall, except where it is of the opinion that the delay in the trial of the accused has been occasioned by an act or omission of the accused or any other person acting on his behalf direct that any person shall be released on bail.
(a) who, being accused of any offence not punishable with death, has been detained for such offence for a continuous period exceeding one year or in case of a woman exceeding six months and whose trial for such offence has not concluded; or
(b) who, being accused of an offence punishable with death, has been detained for such offence for a continuous period exceeding two years and in case of a woman exceeding one year and whose trial for such offence has not concluded.
' Provided further that the provisions of the foregoing proviso shall not apply to a previously convicted offender for an offence punishable with death or imprisonment for life or to a person who, in the opinion of the Court, is a hardened, desperate or dangerous Criminal or is accused of an act of terrorism punishable with death or imprisonment for life."
7. (sic. Admittedly, the petitioner is nominated in the crime report, which was lodged promptly, with specific role of raising lalkara and causing firearm injuries to the deceased, namely. Siraj Din and Muhammad Fayyaz. The ocular account is fully supported by the medical evidence. During the course of first investigation, the petitioner was found involved in the commission of the alleged crime.
8. Furthermore, this Court, as an abundant caution, has requisitioned report from the learned trial court. The same has been received through letter No,95, dated 30.06.2016, according to which all the witnesses of the prosecution are appearing before the learned trial' court and even examination-in-chief of five prosecution witnesses has been recorded, who are still to be cross- examined by the defence but despite of last opportunity given by the learned trial court to the defence to cross-examine the witnesses, the petitioner has not engaged his counsel. Learned trial court has also mentioned in the report that "accused are taking adjournments on different pretext for cross-examination i,e, sickness, non-availability of their counsel due to strikes, engagement of counsel of accused in Hon'ble High Court or other courts, filing of miscellaneous applications for dispensation of attendance by co-accused who are near relative of the petitioner/accused, wilful and deliberate absence of co-accused and legal proceedings against them and request for adjournment for engaging new counsel etc.". The delay in conclusion of the trial is attributed to the accused; therefore, the petitioner cannot take the advantage of statutory delay, even his conduct before the learned trial court cannot be ignored. In the case of Babar Hussain v. The State and others (2016 SCM R 1538), the august Supreme Court of Pakistan has held that:-- "----S. 497---Bail---Scope---Delay of more than two years in conclusion of trial---Even after lapse of two years, the conduct of an accused seeking adjournments could be taken note of and bail could be denied by a court even on the statutory ground."
9. It is very strange that it has become customary that bail applications are being moved before this Court, although accused are not cooperating with the learned trial court to conclude the trial.
This practice of filing repeated applications before this Court while ignoring the process of trial by not producing the defence counsel for cross-examination has to be curbed for better results for the disposal of trial.
10. Keeping in view the aforesaid facts and circumstances, no ground for grant of relief sought for is made out. Resultantly, the instant petition having no force stands dismissed. However, the learned trial court is directed to proceed with the trial expeditiously and conclude the same within three months and submit report to Deputy Registrar (Judicial) of this Court.