Through the instant petition, 'Omar petitioner seeks post arrest bail in case FIR No. 1319/2018, dated 26.06.2018, offences under Sections 302/365/147/149, PPC, registered at police station Kahna, Lahore.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he will not argue the instant bail petition on merits as the same may prejudice the case of either party and will advance his arguments only to the extent of ground taken by the petitioner regarding delay in conclusion of his trial.
3. Arguments heard. Record perused.
4. I have noted that the petitioner was arrested in this case on 30.08.2018 and report under Section 173, Cr.P.C. was submitted before the learned trial Court on 20.02.2019, whereas charge was framed against the petitioner on 22.03.2019. It is evident from the perusal of attested copy of order sheet of the learned trial Court that on 06.04.2019, the complainant along with his PWs was present but the case was adjourned on the request of the accused/petitioner as he wanted to hire the services of a learned counsel in this case. On 22.04.2019, although the complainant was directed to produce his private witnesses but even on the said date, a request was made by the accused/petitioner to adjourn the case in order to engage his defence counsel. On 04.05.2019, the complainant was present and he was directed to produ ce his private witnesses but even on the said date, the accused persons (including the petitioner) also made a request to adjourn the case as they wanted to engage their defence counsel, however , the learned trial Court clarified that if the accused persons (including the petitioner) would not engage their counsel till the next date, then defence counsel on state expenses will be provided. On 21.05.2019, the complainant along with PWs namely Shakeel, Muhammad Amjad, Muhammad Bashir , Naveed Ahmad and Muhammad Yasin was present and they were ready to record their evidence but the accused persons (including the petitioner), submitted that they have not engage their counsel and requested for an adjournment, however , the learned trial Court repeated direction that in case the accused persons (including the petitioner) do not engage their counsel till the next date, then the defence counsel at state expenses will be provided in this case. On 27.6.2019, the complainant along with PWs namely Shakeel, Muhammad Amjad, Muhammad Bashir and Naveed Ahmed was present before the Court but the case was adjourned due to the strike of lawyers (including the lawyer of the petitioner). On 10.08.2019, the complainant was directed to produce his witnesses but at the same time, the accused persons (including the petitioner) were directed to ensure the presence of their counsel on the next date.
On 28.08.2019, the complainant along with PWs Naveed, Rasheed and Amjad was present before the Court and they were ready to record their evidence but the accused persons (including the petitioner) made request for an adjournment, therefore, the case was adjourned and it was noted by the learned trial Court in order dated 28.08.2019, that till the date, the accused persons had not engage their counsel and number of opportunities had already been obtained by them to engage a counsel, whereas the prosecution witnesses are appearing before the Court regularly , therefore, absolute last and final opportunity was granted to the accused persons (including the petitioner) to engage their counsel till the next date of hearing, otherwise, defence counsel at state expenses shall be provided to the accused persons. On 4.9.2019, the complainant along with the PWs namely Shakeel, Muhammad Amjad, Muhammad Bashir and Naveed Ahmad was present and they were ready to record their evidence but due to non-availability of learned defence counsel, the case was adjourned and it was noted in the said order that the accused persons namely Muhammad Usman (co-accused), Muhammad Umar (petitioner) and Muhammad Talha (co-accused) had not engaged their counsel and they were directed to ensure the presence of their counsel on the next date. On 18.9.2019, examination- in-chief of two PWs was recorded, whereas examination-in-chief of the complainant was partially recorded and on raising legal objections by learned defence counsel, his remaining examination-in-c hief was reserved, however , the learned trial Court in order dated 18.09.2019, observed that accused persons namely Muhammad Usman (co-accused), Muhammad Umar (petitioner) and Muhammad Talha (co- accused) had not engaged their counsel and they were directed to engage their counsel till the next date of hearing . On 04.01.2020, the complainant along with PWs namely Bashir and Naveed was present but the case was adjourned on the joint request of learned vice counsel for the parties. On 20.10.2020, the complainant along with PW Naveed was present but the case was adjourned due to strike of lawyers (including the lawyer of the petitioner). On 04.11.2020, the complainant along with Muhammad Bashir and Muhammad Amjad was present but the case was again adjourned due to strike of lawyers (including the lawyer of the petitioner). On 19.12.2020, the complainant along with PWs namely Muhammad Bashir , Muhammad Amjad and Naveed Ahmad was present but due to non-availability of learned defence counsel, the case was adjourned. It is, therefore, evident from the perusal of attested copy of order sheet of the learn ed trial Court that the petitioner engaged his counsel in this case on 17.10.2019 i.e., after seven months from the framing of charge and he (petitioner) himself sought adjournments from the learned trial Court to engage his counsel. As the petitioner sought adjournments on the crucial dates , when the prosecution witnesses appea red before the Court, therefore, he is not entitled to the relief of post arres t bail on the ground of delay in conclusion of his trial as observed by the August Supreme Court of Pakistan in the case of "Abdur Rashid vs. State" (PLJ 1998 SC 1241). Although learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that if the period of adjournments sought by the petitioner is excluded from consideration, even then a period of more than two years has elapsed from the date of arrest of the petitioner but there is no substance in the abovementioned argument of learned counsel for the petitioner because learned counsel for the petitioner is unable to cite a single judgment, where the prosecution witnesses repeatedly appeared before the Court and adjournments were sought on the said date by the accused and even then the bail was granted to the said accused after excluding the period of his detention.
5. In the light of above discussion, there is no substance in the present petition, hence the same is hereby dismissed. revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.