' Petitioners, accused in a case under sections 302/307/404/325/148/149 and 109, P.P.C., who are facing trial before the learned Special Court for Speedy Trials, Faisalabad, have filed this petition for the grant of bail on the sole ground that despite the expiry of more than two years, their trial has not concluded as yet. On the last date of hearing viz. 22-6-1988, it was pointed out by the learned counsel appearing for the complainant that Khalid Rashid, petitioner No,4, was arrested on 26-8- 1986 and, therefore, it was submitted that in his case statutory period has not expired as yet.
Confronted with this position, learned counsel for the petitioners did not press the petition qua him with the result that the application to the extent of the said petitioner was dismissed. Application qua the remaining three petitioners is being disposed of by this order.
2. Facts necessary for the disposal of this petition, briefly stated, a that the petitioners were arrested in the aforementioned case on 28-2-1986. After usual investigation, challan was submitted in the Court of the learned Sessions Judge who by order dated 6-10-1987 transferred the case to Mr. M.A.
Shahid Siddiqui, Additional Sessions Judge, for trial and directed the petitioners to appear before the trial Court on 8-10-1987. Subsequently, on 27-2-1988 case was transferred to the learned Special Court for Speedy Trials, Faisalabad. Petitioners filed W.P. No,1005 of 1988 to challenge the notification issued by the Government entrusting the case to the Special Court for Speedy Trials.
Writ petition is still pending.
3. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners as also the learned Additional Advocate- General for the State and the counsel for the complainant. Learned counsel for the petitioners has contended that the petitioners were arrested on 28-2-1986 and although more than two years have elapsed, their trial has not as yet concluded. Petitioners are, therefore, entitled to be released on bail by virtue of third proviso to section 497(1), Cr.P.C. Learned Additional Advocate-. General as also the learned counsel for the complainant have on the other hand, argued that the petitioners were themselves responsible for the delay in the trial. They have pointed out that no proceedings were taken by the learned Additional Sessions Judge from 7-11-1987 to 15-12-1987 because the petitioners had moved an application before the learned Sessions Judge for transfer of the case.
Again, the case had to be adjourned and no proceedings were taken from 20-12-1987 to 28-1-1988 on account of the non-appearance of Akbar Ali petitioner who during this period took B.A.
Examination. It is thus argued that the delay of two months A and sixteen days is attributable to the petitioners. It is further submitted that after the case was transferred to the learned Special Court for Speedy Trials on 27-21988, it has examined as many as thirteen witnesses from 5-3-1988 to 23- 4-1988. Thereafter, the proceedings before the Special Court were stayed as a result of the orders passed by this Court in the aforementioned writ petition filed by the petitioners. Learned counsel for the petitioners has not been able to controvert these submissions of the learned Additional Advocate-General. In the circumstances, keeping in view the delays attributable to the accused/petitioners, they are not entitled to be released on bail on the statutory ground enacted in third proviso to section 497(1), Cr.P.C. Consequently, this petition is dismissed.