1. ' The case under sections 302, P. P. C. And 13-D, Arms Ordinance is pending against applicant Asghar in the Court of III Additional Sessions Judge, Sukkur.
2. ' This bail application has been pressed on the ground of delay in trial. It is contended by Mr. Kazi that applicant was arrested on 28-7-1982 and remained in jail for three years but case has not yet been decided, therefore, applicant is entitled to bail as per proviso 3 to section 497, Cr. P. C. He has further argued that applicant is responsible for a delay of 144 days. He has cited 1983 SCMR 72 and PLD 1983 Lah.
3. 689.
4. ' Mr. A. G. Mangi, learned Asstt. A.-G., has opposed bail application and submitted that entire evidence has been recorded and case is likely to be completed very early. He has also argued that on 11 occasions applicant's Advocate sought adjournment when witnesses were present, therefore, he is responsible for the delay.
5. The case is an old one and on so many hearings it was adjourned at the request of the counsel appearing for the applicant, therefore, the delay appears to be on the part of accused. The entire evidence including statement of accused has been recorded and case was fixed for decision when A. P. P. Appearing before the trial Court made an application for summoning three persons as Court witness and his application has been granted by the trial Judge. The complainant is present. He has stated that he is not interested in examining any other witness but his anxiety I that case be decided and complainant party is making false applications purported to have been made by complainant.
6. ' I have gone through the R & P which is available in this Court and find that applicant is not entitled to get benefit as he is responsible for the delay. Moreover, his application was also dismissed by this Court as withdrawn on 18-11-1984 at Sukkur Bench.
7. ' I have to refer a case in PLD 1982 SC 424 wherein it has been observed as under :- "4. We regret we are not impressed by these submissions, as we find that the requirement of the law is not fulfilled in this case, as at least on eight occasions adjournments were sought by the defence for one reason or the other. In such a case it does not appear to be the intention of the law to calculate the amount of delay caused by the defence. All that is necessary is to see whether the finalisation of the trial has, in any manner, been delayed by an act or omission on the part of the accused. In the present case, the delay is partly attributable to the accused. The submission that the date in question was not fixed for the hearing of the case is not correct. On the contrary, it is clear from the order sheet of the trial Court on these dates most of the witnesses were summoned and were present, but their examination had to be postponed owing to the request made by the defence counsel."
8. The case is at the verge of completion and at this stage in these] circumstances I am of the view that applicant is not entitled to concession :B of bail. The trial Court is directed to proceed with this case day to day and complete within two months. He should see that no unnecessary adjournments are granted. The weekly progress report be sent to this Court. The record of the case is lying here which is being sent to the trial Court.
9. ' The application is dismissed.