ALI BAIG, C.J. The instant bail petition has been filed by the petitioner/accused under section 497 Cr.P.C seeking post arrest bail in criminal case FIR No. 14/2019 registered under sections 302/34 P.P.C. at Police Station Parri Bangla Gilgit.
2. Succinctly, the prosecution story as reflected in the FIR is that complainant namely Muhammad Ghulam son of Wilayat Khan resident of Harban Kohistan presently residing at Parri Bangla had submitted a written complaint/application before SHO police Station Parri Bangla District Gilgit with the contention that his real brother namely Faras Khan had gone to his land situated at Parri Bangla to look after his land and there was a dispute over the said land between one namely Abdul Wazir and the deceased. On the day of occurrence i.e. 06.04.2019 at about 1600 hours, accused namely Abdul Wazir son of Ghushpure, Shafiullah, Ghulam Ullah sons of Abdul Wazir and Umar Frooq son of Abdul Latif resident of Parri Bangla appeared at the scene of occurrence and with intention to kill his real brother attacked/assaulted him. Resultantly caused grievous injuries to his real brother and as per final police report/challan the victim died due to the said injuries.
3. After receipt of the complaint the concerned SHO lodged the FIR bearing No. 14/2019, arrested all the nominated accused, started investigation of the case and after completion of formal investigation the concerned SHO committed the accused/present petitioner to judicial custody.
The present petitioner had filed a post arrest bail petition before the learned trial Court. The learned trial Court after hearing arguments on behalf of both the parties has dismissed the application filed by the petitioner, hence, the present petitioner has preferred post arrest bail petition before this Court for his enlargement on bail.
4. It is pertinent to mention here that the post arrest bail petition filed by the present petitioner had been disposed of by this Court with direction to learned trial Court to "conclude the trial of the case within 10 days vide order dated 02-11-2023 passed in Cr. Misc No.251/2023. The learned trial Court has failed to conclude the trial of the case within the stipulated period as directed in the aforesaid order of this Court, hence, the petitioner has filed the instant bail petition before this Court.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner/accused argued that the accused/petitioner is innocent and the local police in collision with the complainant has implicated the petitioner in the instant case with mala fide intention. The learned counsel for the petitioner/accused further argued that there is no eye-witness of the occurrence. The learned counsel for the petitioner/accused further argued that no crime weapon has been recovered from the petitioner/accused by the police. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that no specific role has been attributed to the petitioner in the occurrence. The learned counsel for the petitioner/accused further submitted that prosecution has failed to link the present accused/petitioner with the alleged crime. The learned counsel for the petitioner/accused further submitted that the case of the petitioner/accused requires further inquiry, therefore, the accused/petitioner is entitled for concession of bail.
Concluding their arguments, the learned counsel for the petitioner/accused argued that the case of prosecution has badly failed to conclude trial of case within the stipulated period as directed by this Court, hence the petitioner/accused is entitled for concession of bail.
6. Conversely, the learned DAG and learned counsel for the complainant controverted the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner/accused by contending that the present petitioner/accused is directly nominated in the promptly lodged FIR with specific role. The learned DAG and learned counsel for the complainant further contended that eye-witnesses have fully implicated the petitioner/accused with the alleged crime/occurrence. The learned DAG and learned counsel for the complainant further contended that offences reflected in the FIR are non- bailable and capital punishment is provided for the offence and in like cases petitioners/accused are not entitled for any leniency. The learned DAG and learned counsel for the complainant further contended that case is at concluding stage and only one witnesses is required to be examined.
The learned DAG further contended that petitioner/accused has committed murder of an innocent person in a broad day light and there is no probability of false implication of the accused/petitioner in the instant case. While concluding his arguments, the learned DAG and learned counsel for complainant argued that the petitioner/accused is involved in commission of a heinous offence and is not entitled for any concession of bail and bail petition of the petitioner/accused is liable to be dismissed.
7. I have heard the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and with their able assistance perused the available record of the case, minutely.
8. From perusal of record it transpires that the occurrence was taken place on 16-04-2019 and FIR No. 14/2019 was registered on the same day. But despite lapse of more than 4-1/2 years the prosecution has failed to conclude the trail of the case of the petitioner/accused.
9. It is pertinent to mention here that earlier the petitioner had filed an application for grant of bail before this Court which was disposed of by this Court with direction to the trial Court to dispose of the case of the petitioner/accused within 10 days by conducting day by day hearing as case was at concluding stage vide bail order dated 02-11-2023 but the prosecution has failed to produce remaining PWS before the trial Court, hence, this petition.
10. Since, prosecution has failed to conclude the case of the petitioner despite lapse of more than 4-1/2 years of the registration of FIR and also despite clear direction of this Court. It is settled principle of law that an accused cannot be kept in jail for indefinite period as punishment on the ground that he is directly charged for an offence falling under the prohibitory clause of section 497 Cr.P.C. Moreover, co-accused of the present petitioner namely Ghulam Ullah has been released on bail by this Court vide bail order dated 04-07-2023 as such the petitioner is also entitled for the same on the principle of rule of consistency. The petitioner/accused is behind the bars for last more than four years and he is no more required for purpose of investigation. No useful purpose would be served by keeping the petitioner behind the bars for an indefinite period. Thus I am of the opinion that the petitioner is entitled for concession of bail.
11. For what has been discussed above, this petition is accepted and the petitioner is admitted to post arrest bail subject to his furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs. 5,00,000/ - (Five lac only) with two local sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of learned trial Court. File.