This revision is directed against the order, dated 25-1-1986, passed by Sh. Saeed Ahmad, Additional Sessions Judge, Gujrat whereby he granted bail to Muhammad Fazal, Muhammad Arif and Muhammad Ashraf respondents in a case pertaining to the murder of Muhammad Khan deceased and murderous assault on Muhammad Iqbal and Fazal Dad P.Ws. The respondents were allowed bail on the ground that the trial could not be concluded within the statutory period.
2. It is stated that the respondents had moved the High Court for bail (Criminal Miscellaneous No. 1459/B of 1985 which was dismissed on 15-6-1985. They again applied for bail (Criminal Miscellaneous No 2358/B of 1985) which was also dismissed on 19-10-1985 but later on they succeeded, in getting bail from Sh. Saeed Ahmad, Additional Sessions Judge, Gujrat on 25-1-1986.
It is contended that after the dismissal of bail petitions by the High Court twice the learned Additional Sessions Judge was not justified to grant bail to the respondents. It is next argued that when a report was called from the learned A.S.J. In Criminal Miscellaneous 2358/B of 1985 as to the cause of delay in the conclusion of trial the learned trial Judge held the respondents responsible for the delay but after the expiry of three months of the dismissal of their bail applications by the High Court he allowed bail to them on the ground of delay. Learned counsel states that the trial Court should have promptly proceeded with the case after the transfer application moved by Naeem co-accused had been dismissed by the High Court and the Supreme Court but instead of doing that it granted long adjournments which enabled the respondents to seek bail on the ground of non-completion of trial within the statutory period of two years. It is further stated that the case was received on transfer by the learned Additional Session Judge on 28-6-1984. Copies were delivered to them on 4-6-1985 and the case was fixed for evidence on 6-7-1985 when statements of 4 P.Ws. Were recorded. On 29-9-1985 when a direction was issued by the High Court to the trial Court to continue with the trial but not to pass the final order the trial Court fixed the case for 2-11- 1985 whereas it could have been fixed much earlier than that. It is further stated that after the dismissal of petition for Special Leave to Appeal on 2-11-1985 the trial Court should have proceeded with the trial instead of granting long adjournments on the mere statement of one of the co- accused that he had moved a review application in the Supreme Court although it was aware of the fact that no stay order had been granted by the Supreme Court. The prosecution witnesses who were present before the trial Court on that date were sent back unexamined.
3. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and am of the, view that the learned trial Court was not at all justified to grant bail to the respondent particularly when they had been declined bail by tree r High Court. It is strange that when a report was called by the High Court from the trial Court as to the causes of delay in the conclusion of trial it held the accused responsible for the delay and when their petition was dismissed by the High Court the trial Court granted them bail on that ground. The relevant portion of the order of the learned A.S.J. Proceeds as under:-- "I had kept the application pending for today, for I had already started evidence in the case and thought that I would be able to conclude the same, nevertheless for Naeem, one of the accused Drayed for adjournment, for he had moved some review application in the Honourable Supreme Court, therefore, the case have had to be adjourned for a date in March, 1986. In view of the fact that Naeem had allegedly moved a review petition in the Honourable Supreme Court of Pakistan, no one knows how long would it take to conclude the case. The petitioners, as such seem to have become entitled to the concession of bail as of right, also for the reason that they are not shown to be desperate."
The circumstances discussed above show that the learned Additional Sessions Judge failed to take proper steps for the expeditious disposal of the case and granted unnecessary long adjournments even before the transfer applications had been moved ignoring the instructions issued by the High Court from time to time to proceed with the Sessions trial day to day and to avoid unnecessary adjournments. As already stated above since the trial Court had held the respondents responsible for the delay it was not proper on its part to give them premium for it. Accordingly I accept the petition and cancel the bail of the respondents and direct that they be taken into custody. The trial Court is directed to proceed with the case immediately and to conclude it within three weeks of the receipt of this order by holding the trial day to day.