1. The learned Advocate for the applicants in support of the above application submitted, that more than two years have lapsed, since apple--cants were arrested and so far only one prosecution witness has been examined and still 14 P. Ws. Remain to be examined. The learned Advocate for the applicant submitted, that in spite of the orders of this Court passed on previous bail application to examine at least eye-witnesses, within three months, the learned trial Court has failed to obey such orders. The learned Advocate for the applicants however drew my attention to the certified copies of the diary sheets, which he has filed and submitted, that except for one adjournment taken by the applicants, on account of illness of their Advocate, the learned trial Court, although prosecution witnesses were present, did not examine them on one ground or the other. In view of this the learned Advocate for the applicants relied upon case reported in PLD 1982 Kar. 965 and submitted, that this is a fit case for exercising discretion in favour of the applicants and releasing them on bail, on ground of delay alone.
2. The learned Advocate for the complainant on the other hand vehe--mently opposed the above application on the ground that delay in disposal of the trial is due to the applicants and other co- accused persons, who jointly so far have taken two adjournments. In view of this the learned Advocate for the complainant submitted, that this is not a fit case for grant of bail on ground of delay, but the directions be given to the learned trial Court to expeditiously dispose of the trial.
3. The learned Addl. A.-G. Appearing for the State has also opposed the above application and has relied upon the decisions. Of the honourable Supreme Court given in 1980 P C J 225 (?) 1980 SCMR 203 and unreported judgment of the honourable Supreme Court in Petition for Leave to Appeal No. K-27 of 1982 and submitted, that since the trial has begun, the above application is being opposed by him.
4. I have carefully considered the above submissions made by the learned Advocates before me and I have gone through the cases cited by the learned Advocates.
5. It is true, that so far only one adjournment has been taken by the applicants on the ground of the illness of their Advocate. It is also true, that the prosecution has only examined one witness so far and has failed to examine other P. Ws. Who were even present before the learned trial Court and still 14 P. Ws. Remain to be examined. However, since the trial has already begun, I would like to refrain from exercising my discretion at this stage. However, I give directions to the learned trial Court to record all the prosecution evidence that may be made available, within three months from receipt of copy of this orders and dispose of the case in question, without fail.
6. I also direct the learned trial Court to submit explanation to this Court, why prosecution witnesses were not examined, when they were present in spite of earlier orders of this Court, within two weeks from receipt of copy of this order.
7. The above application is dismissed in the terms of the above order. However applicants will be at liberty to move a fresh bail application on this ground, if the trial in question is not completed by the learned trial Court within the period hereinabove mentioned, for no fault of the applicants.