1. ORDER PLD 1982 SC 424 where even though accused was in custody for more than 3 years and the trial had not completed and there was delay on the part of the accused for 3 months only, yet Supreme Court refused to grant bail.
2. Mr. Kazi Azizullah has relied upon PLD 1982 Kar. 965 where it had been held by Mr. Fakhruddin H.
3. Shaikh, J. That in a case there the respondent had merely applied for 2/3 times for adjournment, no inordinate delay was caused, bail was allowed to the respondent. The earlier ruling of the Supreme Court similar to one cited by the learned trial Court i.e. PLD 1982 SC 424 was distinguished by Mr. Justice Fakhruddin H. Shaikh on the ground that in that case as many as 8 adjournments were sought by the accused and, therefore, it was held that the trial was delayed by the accused himself. Moreover, in the Supreme Court case the triad was already fixed and charge was framed.
4. The-present case has not even been set down for regular trial and the question of charge having been framed does not arise. Hence mere seeking of adjournment on 3 occasions and that too for unavoidable reasons cannot be regarded as delay in the trial due to the lapse on the part of accused for which concession of bail may be withheld. It has been reported by the police that Accused was neither a previous convict nor dangerous and desperate person.
5. Under these circumstances I feel that the applicant is entitled to the concession of bail, I, therefore, order that the applicant be released on bail on furnishing surety and P.R. In the sum of Rs.20,000 to the satisfaction of Second Additional Sessions Judge Nawab Shah.