' SHAHID HAMEED DAR, J.---The allegation against the petitioner, Muhammad Ijaz Khan, as per FIR No,601/13, dated 28.11.2013, under sections 302, 324, 109/34, P.P.C., registered at police station Saddar Arifwala, District Pakpattan Sharif is, that he being armed with pistol .30-bore, joined by his armed co-accused, intercepted the motorcycle of Muhammad Imran (complainant) at about 8.15 a.m. On 28.11.2013 and sent all the riders, including the complainant, his mother Mst.Nasreen Akhtar, his daughter baby Zohra alias Tahira, aged about 6/7 months and his brother Muhammad Hannan crying to the ground in serious injured condition, one out of whom, Muhammad Hannan succumbed to the injuries at civil hospital, Arifwala; the motive behind the occurrence pertained to previous criminal litigation between the parties; the accused committed the crime on the abetment of Ghulam Muhammad and others. The specific attribution against the petitioner is that his firing hit the injured persons and not the deceased.
2. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record, it is observed that the petitioner's earlier post-arrest bail application (Crl.Misc.No,532-B/2015) was dismissed as withdrawn on 13.5.2015, after it had been argued at the length. He, now, seeks for his release on bail, on the statutory ground of delay in conclusion of his trial. The requisite report, submitted by the learned trial court as to present stage of his trial reveals that some of his co-accused kept playing hide and seek with the court and did not let it frame the charge against them on one pretext or the other. Learned trial court appeared to have handled the situation extra-coolly, as it apparently did little to tame the uncouth accused, if any, and readily adjourned the proceedings without taking recourse to the legal measures that could easily have brought the situation under its effective control. Learned counsel for the petitioner has taken this court to almost all the interim orders passed by the learned trial court, to make it a point that the accused/petitioner or any other person acting on his behalf had not occasioned delay in conclusion of the trial. Learned counsel for the complainant also referred to the said orders by contending that the co-accused of the petitioner had protracted the trial-proceedings schemingly, so that it might benefit the petitioner one day in getting himself released on bail. This contention of the learned counsel is hardly tenable for two reasons, firstly, the prosecution could have shown enhanced degree of alertness to persuade the court to indict the accused far earlier and make material advancement in trial and secondly, the learned trial court could easily have exercised its judicial prowess in a far better way, than seemingly done by it, so as to avoid/avert the situation, the parties presently found themselves in. The petitioner could hardly be burdened with the liability of sharing the "clever moves", if any, of his co-accused, who were or weren't relations to the former, as dissently argued by their learned counsel. In an identical situation, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan, while dealing with the bail plea of Muhammad Afzal Butt alias Aphi accused observed as under:-- "4. Petitioner is behind the bars since his arrest i,e, 22.11.2012 and the trial has yet not been completed. The only ground which found favour with the learned High Court while dismissing petitioner's post arrest bail on statutory ground was that the delay occurred due to co-accused of the petitioner, who are closely related to the petitioner. However, the nature of relationship between the petitioner and the co-accused has not been described by the learned High Court.
Just because the fact that some of the co-accused have absconded themselves and delay occurred in trial, is no ground to deprive the petitioner from post-arrest bail on statutory ground. If that was the case, the trial of the petitioner could have been separated, but the same has not been done. When the trial is continuing jointly and some of the co-accused are still absconders, the petitioner cannot be kept behind the bars for an indefinite period. In these circumstances, the petitioner has made out a case for bail on statutory ground."
' The reproduced excerpt has been taken from Muhammad Afzal Butt alias Aphi v. The State and others (2015 SCM R 1696).
3. The attending circumstances of the case conveyed little to believe that the petitioner is a hardened, desperate or dangerous criminal. He has never been involved in an act of terrorism punishable under the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 or other allied laws. His case is not hit by any of the embargos of the 5th or the 6th proviso to section 497(1), Cr.P.C. The sluggishness of the prosecution almost touched the limits of extremity in this case, wherefor the petitioner could not be penalized, nor could he be continuously kept in jail for an indefinite period of time only to satisfy the grudge of the complainant. The law has to take its own course without being effected. By any alien factors.
The petitioner has earned a valuable right of being effected by any alien factors. The petitioner has earned a valuable right of being set at liberty by the afflux of time.
4. For the foregoing reasons, this application is accepted and the petitioner is admitted to post arrest bail subject to furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs, 5,00,000/- (five lacs) with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court.