1. ' This bail application has been moved on behalf of Munir Ahmad and Muhammad Jamil, who are facing trial u/s.302/34, P.P.C. In the Court of Additional Sessions Judge Sanghar. The bail has been sought on the solitary ground of delay in conclusion of the trial which has not been completed within statutory period of two years. The learned trial Court however declined to grant bail on the said ground as in view of the learned trial Judge the accused were also to blame for the delay. It was noted by the trial Court that as many, as four adjournments were granted on request of the accused.
2. ' I have been taken through the case-diary by the learned counsel for the applicants. It appears that the first adjournment sought by accused was on 23-10-1983 when admittedly no witness was present. Therefore it was argued that the case had to be adjourned regardless of the accused's request for the adjournment and as such the adjournment on the above date could not be attributed to the accused. On the next two dates i.e, 12-12-1983 and 23-4-1984, the adjournment was of course granted on the ground of professional engagements of the learned defence counsel in the High Court. The fourth adjournment on 19-7-1984 was sought on behalf of the accused on the ground that in absence of other witnesses it would not be in the interest of the accused to cross- examine the complainant who alone was in attendance. Thus it would appear that it was only on two occasions that the case had to be adjourned owing to the absence of the defence counsel.
3. ' In support of his arguments the learned counsel for the applicants has relied upon Dur Muhammad v. The State PLD 1983 Lah. 24 in which the delay caused in conclusion of the trial on account of bona fide act of the undertrial prisoner or any one else on his behalf was not considered as any hitch in the way of granting bail to the accused.
4. ' The next authority on which the learned counsel placed reliance is reported as Samandar Gui and another v. The -State 1984 PCr.LJ 626. In this case the adjournment was sought by the defence counsel on the ground of his objection to recording of evidence piecemeal. It was held that such legal objection is not to be described as one having been resorted to for delaying the trial of the case.
5. ' My attention has also been drawn to the Supreme Court authority reported as Akhtar Abbas v. The State PLD 1982 SC 424. The facts of the case covered by this authority are distinguishable inasmuch as that eight adjournments were sought by the accused on the dates on which a number of witnesses were present but were not examined.
6. ' In the instant case only two adjournments and that too for bona fide reasons are debited in the account of the accused. In view of the authorities discussed above, such adjournments cannot be permitted to be the reason for refusing bail to the accused. Admittedly two years and about months have passed since arrest of the accused but the trial has not yet concluded. The learned counsel for the accused states that in view of filing of direct complaint relating to the same incident the trial is bound to prolong and there is no hope of its early conclusion.
7. ' For the above reasons, the learned A.A.-G. Has also no objection to grant of bail to the accused.
8. Accordingly bail is allowed to the accused in the sum of Rs,25,000/- each and P.R. Bond of the same amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court.