' Alamdar Hussain petitioner has moved this petition under section 561-A, Cr.P.C. praying for his release on bail as he is rotting in jail for about 31 years being an approver in a murder case.
2. The facts giving rise to this petition are that the petitioner alongwith Muhammad Qasim and Muhammad Hussain was challenged for the murder of Qasim Ali, a taxi driver, committed on 20-2- 1979. The petitioner was arrested on 19-6-1979. He entered into an agreement with the District Magistrate, Muzaffargarh and pardon was granted to him under section 337, Cr.P.C. In compliance with the conditions of the pardon he made a statement before the learned trial Court which concluded on 18-5-1982. It may be stated that Qasim a co-accused in this case had been released on bail by the learned Sessions Judge long before the commencement of the trial on the ground that he did not give the fatal blow to the deceased. Admittedly the case of the petitioner is at par with aforesaid Qasim but he is being detained in jail under subsection (3) of section 337, Cr.P.C. which says that an approver who is not already on bail shall be detained in custody until the termination of the trial. The stage of the trial is, that out of 28 witnesses 23 have been examined.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner argues that the trial of the case suffers from abuse of process of Court inasmuch as the trial commenced on 25-5-1981 and despite a period of over 11 years having elapsed the case has not so far concluded for no fault of the petitioner, who is in jail for about 3/ yeaRs,
4. I have gone through the interim orders and find that the trial has proceeded at snail's pace mainly due to inefficiency on the part of the prosecution because on a number of occasions the witnesses could not be examined because the case property was not made available in Court. It is true that the trial remained held up for about six months because the Presiding Officer had proceeded for training arranged in the country and also abroad. From the past history of the case one cannot be sanguine that it would conclude in the near future.
5. Learned counsel for the State argues that the petitioner cannot claim to be released on bail because he is being detained in accordance with the mandatory provisions of law i.e, subsection
(3) of section 337, Cr.P.C. which enjoins that an approver shall be detained in custody until the termination of the trial. As for the delay occurred in the trial, the learned counsel is not in a position to controvert that it had occurred on account of inefficiency on the part of the prosecution. He is however unable to justify the delay and does no blame the petitioner either for causing this delay.
6. I have examined the relevant provisions i.e, section 337 subsection (3) as well as section 561-A, Cr.P.C. in the light of a number of authorities cited at the bar and find that this Court has got ample jurisdiction under section 561-A, Cr.P.C. to interfere and allow bail to an approver where the trial has suffered from abuse of process of Court. The case in hand furnishes a glaring example of the kind and instances are not lacking where this Court exercising its inherent jurisdiction released an approver on bail. In this regard a reference may be made with advantage to Muhammad Ramzan v. The State 1971 Cr. L J Lah. 1150 and Abdul Latif v. The State PLD 1975 Kar.
159.
7. For what has been stated above, I am inclined to allow this petition. It is directed that the petitioner be released on bail subject to his furnishing security in the sum of Rs, 50,000 with two sureties in the like amount to the satisfaction of trial Court.