1. Granted.
2. This accused is facing trial under section 302, P.P.C. For having committed murder of one Ali Akbar Shah while he was on his way to the mosque to offer prayers. This seems to be the fourth application in a chain. All the other previous applications have been rejected. On 16-8-1983 bail application moved by this accused was rejected by my predecessor Mr. Justice Ajmal Mian and speedy trial was ordered. But unfortunately no progress has been shown since then and the accused filed another application which was disposed of by Mr. Justice Ally Madad Shah by his order, dated 5-11-1984 on the ground that the accused should first approach the trial Court.
Consequently the accused/applicant moved a bail application before the trial Court and by an order, dated 14th November, 1984 this application has been rejected by the learned Sessions Judge, Larkana. Reasons given in this application seem to be very unimpressive. The reasons are that because two previous applications have been rejected, this should also be rejected. In the present case the application was moved on the ground that the accused has remained in custody for more than two years and he was entitled to bail as a matter of right under third proviso to section 497, Cr.P.C. The admitted position in the case is that this offence was committed on 19-3-1981, and accused was arrested on 20-3-1981. Calculated from this date of arrest the detention of the applicant far exceeds the period of two years prescribed under the proviso and even if the time for which the accused applied for adjournments is excluded, the period of the detention would be more than two years. The learned counsel, in the circumstances, argued that in view of the fact that the delay is not caused by a conduct attributable to the accused/applicant he should be released on bail. Surely this is a case in which detention has exceeded two years but the answer lies in the order passed by the learned Sessions Judge on 27th of March, 1984 and it is worthwhile to reproduce a portion of this order. After narrating the facts of the case and the previous history of the bail applications moved by this accused from time to time the learned Sessions Judge, Larkana observed as follows:- "I have gone through the record. It is true that the accused has remained in custody for more than two years and unfortunately the trial against him has not yet commenced. As stated above, after the record and proceeding was received in this Court in the first week of December, 1983, the accused has never been produced by the jail authorities. There is, however, a serious impediment coming in the way of the accused for the grant of bail. On perusal of the record I find that after his arrest, the accused was confined in the judicial lock-up at Ratodero. On 27-7-1981 the accused escaped from the judicial lock-up but he was chased and eventually caught by the local police.
This conduct would show that the accused is likely to abscond if he is granted the concession of bail. In these circumstances I am of the view that the accused is not entitled to concession of bail on the ground that he has remained in custody for more than two years. This bail application is accordingly dismissed. I have, however, issued a notice to the Superintendent, Central Jail, Sukkur, to cause the attendance of the accused positively on the next date of hearing so that the trial against him should be expedited."
' Unfortunately this ground of rejection of bail by the learned Sessions Judge in his order, dated 27th March, 1984 has escaped the notice of all the Courts who have passed various orders in this case.
Nor indeed was it brought to my notice either by the learned A.A.-G. Or by the learned counsel appearing for the accused/applicant today. Among the four or five files now placed before me I just happened to see this order and found an explanation for rejection of the bail of this accused/applicant. Bail has been rejected on account of a conduct which has been criticised and disapproved by the learned Sessions Judge. While having full sympathy with the accused and also realizing that he would have been entitled to bail by virtue of the proviso I cannot help saying that the bail has been rightly refused due to his own questionable conduct. The learned Sessions Judge has expressed an apprehension that the accused may abscond and there is nothing before me to replace this apprehension. In the circumstances the bail application is rejected. The learned A.A.-G.
Is directed to find out from the authorities concerned why the orders and directions of the High Court in the order, dated 16th of August, 1983 requiring expeditious disposal of this case have not been carried out. It is to be regretted that the jail authorities have not produced the accused on the dates of hearing for one year. This must be working very hard on the accused but unfortunately it is on account of his own doings that the attempts to obtain bail are frustrated. The bail application is rejected. The learned Sessions Judge is directed to conclude the trial within two months from the date of receipt of this order. He is also required to furnish a report to this Court after one month showing the progress made in the proceedings.