MALIK HAQ NAWAZ, J-.. petitioner has been booked for the offence under section 302/34 vide FIR No,38/12 of Police Station Darel.
2. Petitioner/accused applied for bail after arrest in the Court of learned Sessions Judge, Diamer, which was refused vide order dated 10-06-2016 and being dissatisfied from the said order, he has come to this Court for the concession of bail.
3. The precise facts of the case are that complainant Syed Jamal real brother of deceased lodged report of the occurrence, stating therein that on 24-05-2012 at 15:30 hrs while he and his deceased brother were returning from Masjid after Juma prayer, the present petitioner and his real brother Nizam-ud-Din (absconding accused) who were already sitting in ambush opened fire shot on his deceased brother Khan Alam, who succumb to the injuries at the spot. The occurrence was witnessed by Jan Azam son of Muhammad Jamal and Syed Azam son of Syed Ghaffar.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that challan of the case was put in Court on 24- 10-2014 and charged was framed on 28-11-2014, but a period over 2 years has elapsed but PWs are not attending the Court despite of issuance of bailable/non-bailable warrants. The learned counsel placed on record the attested copies of order sheets from the start of the case i,e, 28-10- 2014 to 17-10-2016. The order sheets of the trial Courts were read in open Courts, which depict a shocky picture of the proceeding conducted by the trial Court. The learned counsel submits that the prosecution and complainant are in league and causing delay to add into the miseries and hardships of the petitioner, more over the petitioner is in Jail since last over two years and because of malicious attitude of the complainant, he has become entitled for the concession of bail.
5. The learned Deputy Advocate General opposed the bail on the ground that it is a day light occurrence and the petitioner has been directly charged in the FIR and weapon of offence has been recovered from his possession. There is a prima facie case against the petitioner/ accused and he should not be allowed concession of bail.
6. The charge in the instant case was framed on 28-11-2014 and PWs were summoned for evidence and the case was adjourned for 11-12-2014. Instead of reproducing, all the order sheets, suffice to say that from 28-11-2014 to 17-10-2016, the case was fixed for evidence over more than 30th dates of hearing but on connective 24 dates of hearing the PWs were absent and did not attend the Court despite the process of attachment of their properties. The learned trial Court failed to follow the law as the procedure for execution of summonses/warrants have been provided in Chapter VI (Sections 68 to 93 C). Perusal of order sheets shows that after issuance of summonses/warrants the courts do nothing more than merely repealing the issuance of summonses/ warrants. This practice of the lower Courts and Districts Judiciary is not approved and it is not enough to deal and conduct the trial. It is strictly directed that whenever a summon/warrant is issued and a date is fixed for attendance of the witnesses and summon/warrant does not return either served or un-served till the date fixed for appearance the Court concerned shall summon the officials/persons to whom the same were addressed for execution. The Court may record the statements of the persons deputed for execution of summon/warrants and shall fix the responsibility and will take strict action against the delinquent officials as it amounts to obstructing the course of Justice and responsible shall be dealt with accordingly.
7. It is being noted that about 80/90 percent summonses/warrants issued by the Court remained unserved and the cases are adjourned by the trial Court on the flimsy plea that the process issued have not been received back either served or unserved, which is becoming the main cause in disposal of civil as well as criminal cases. It is heart rendering and a shocking reflection in the efficiency and interest shown by the police and warrants executing agency. If this ill response and tendency will remain unchecked the whole system will collapse and now it is the high time that some extra ordinary steps are taken and the defaulting party is brought to justice.
8. It is therefore, directed that in future, it shall be the personal obligation and statutory duty of the SHO of concerned police station and Superintendent of Police of the concerned District to ensure that all processes issued by the Courts were served and executed effectively and without fail. I further direct to all the judges of the District Judiciary, that after taking cognizance of a case, the of the case shall also be summoned to attend the case on all the dates of hearing and he shall be made bound to produce all the concerned witnesses in the Court on all the subsequent dates of hearing as directed by the Court. In case of posting of any concerned investigation officer, the concerned SP will be informed in writing to depute SHO of concerned police station to ensure attendance of the witnesses in the trial Court and the Courts will not tolerate non attendance of the I.O/SHO and in future no excuse in conclusion of trial by the Courts would be acceptable. The directions of the this Court are binding on all the subordinate Courts and all on the state functionaries and any default if noted or brought in the notice of this Court, strong action will be taken against the delinquents. All the Superintendents of Police must be vigilant and inform concerned SHO/IO, to comply with the orders of this Court in letter and spirit and non-compliance will expose them to be liable for contempt proceedings.
9. A copy of this order shall be sent to Inspector General of Police, Gilgit-Baltistan for his information and necessary action. The I.G.P will immediately circulate the same to all the SPs of Gilgit-Baltistan for their information and compliance. A copy of the same shall also be sent to all the Judges of District Judiciary for compliance. Now the chapter of non-service of summons/warrants issued by Courts of law must be closed and the learned Judges of District Judiciary should take strict action against the persons responsible, if any summons/warrant issued by the Court is not served/executed.
10. In view of above discussion and keeping in view the long detention of the petition, the petitioner is admitted to bail subject to furnishing a bail bond of Rs,10,00000/- (Ten lac) each with two sureties in the like amount to the satisfaction of trial Court.