A case under section 302/148/149, P.P.C. Was registered against 13 accused persons including the four respondents in this case. The said case was registered in the year 1981, and the case remained pending adjudication in the Court of Mr. Manzoor Hussain Basra, Additional Sessions Judge at Jhang. On behalf of the seven accused persons, namely, Akhtar, Khizar, Barkha, Allah Yar, Zafar, Muhammad Yar and Rehmi, an application for being released on bail, was moved in this Court and in support of the said application, the provisions of subsection (3) of section 497, Cr.P.C. Were present into service and it was alleged that since the statutory period of two years had expired, and the trial had not yet been concluded, therefore, the aforesaid accused-petitioners, deserved to be admitted to bail. Vide order, dated 13th of August, 1983, this Court accepted the aforesaid plea and allowed the petitioners to be released on bail. While granting bail, this Court transferred the case for trial to the Court of Ch. Nafees Ahmad Bajwa, Sessions Judge, Jhang with the direction to conclude the trial expeditiously. This Court was apprised vide report No. 429 that the trial cannot proceed expeditiously because of the delaying tactics, which were being practised by the accused persons. The learned Sessions Judge, vide his report No. 429, dated 8-2-1984, apprised this Court that on account of the absence of Mr. S.A. Qasir, Advocate, for some accused persons and the respondents in this case, the trial was not proceeding. It was further reported that the other accused persons also absented themselves on one pretext or the other. On one date of hearing, Rehmi accused absented himself, and it was reported that he had been taken into custody by the C.I.A. Staff at Faisalabad, but this pretext was absolutely false and thus, the learned Sessions Judge cancelled his bail. Similarly, on 7-2-1984, Muhammad Yar accused also absented himself on the pretext of sickness. In support of his said ailment, a certificate issued by the Medical Officer, Jaranwala was produced in the Court, the same was also found to be false. The learned Sessions Judge, also issued notice to the Medical officer to show cause, as to why proceedings under the Contempt of Court, be not taken against him. The said report also reveals that per admission of S.A.
Qasir, counsel for the respondent, Muhammad Yar accused deliberately absented himself, at the behest of the accused party, just for seeking adjournment, though the learned counsel had restrained them to do so.
2. There is yet another report, dated 24-4-1984, submitted by the learned Sessions Judge, to this Court. The learned Sessions Judge, reported that on 20th of March, 1984, when the case was fixed for recording remaining evidence, Mr. S.A. Qasir, Advocate, who was representing the respondents, absented himself. Rehmi and other accused, stated before the learned Sessions Judge, that they had given up Mr. S.A. Qasir, Advocate and a request was made for the appointment of a counsel at the State expenses to represent them. The said request was acceded to, and Mr. Ghulam Farid Naul, Advocate was appointed to represent the accused persons, at the State expenses, and the case was adjourned to 26-3-1984. On the said date, Mr. S.A. Qasir, Advocate again appeared and stated before the Court that he would represent the respondents. On that date, statement of P.W. 13 was recorded and the cross-examination of the said witness was declined by Mr. S.A. Qasir, Advocate, on account of his ailment and an application in writing was moved lit that behalf.
3. The case was, then adjourned to 31-3-1984. On the next date of hearing i.e. 4-4-1984, when the remaining evidence was to be recorded, Mr. S.A. Qasir, Advocate again absented himself. Barkha also absented himself on that date. Therefore, it was not possible for the learned Sessions Judge to proceed with the trial.
4. The conduct of S.A. Qasir, Advocate, in absenting himself would be construed-as an act of the respondents.
5. I have been informed, that the statements of only two or three more witnesses have to be recorded to conclude the trial. On account of the peculiar circumstances of the case, I am inclined to hold that the respondents, and other accused are deliberately trying to delay the conclusion of the trial. Before me, it was stated by the respondents that they are trying to compromise, and on that pretext an adjournment was sought, which, in the larger interest of justice, I willingly allowed, and today the learned counsel has argued at length that it is not a fit case for the cancellation of bail, inasmuch as, the delaying tactics are not attributable to these respondents but to the other respondents.
6. As I have already held that the counsel for the respondents time and again absented himself, and on one occasion he had withdrawn himself from the case, and a counsel at the expense of the State was appointed to represent the respondents but again, the counsel (S.A., Qasir) appeared and was allowed to conduct this ease, and thereafter, the counsel again absented himself. All these circumstances would show that the respondents do not deserve the concession of bail.
7. In this view of the matter, I would cancel the bail allowed to the respondents. They shall be taken into custody forthwith.
8. The learned Sessions Judge, Jhang, is directed that in case, the respondents do not appoint any counsel, a counsel at the State expense should expeditiously be appointed and the trial of the case be concluded in the month of June, 1984.
9. A report, with regard to the progress of the trial, be sent to this Court after every fortnight. revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.