' The present bail petition is on behalf of Abdullah Khan, accused in a. Case registered under F.I.R.
No,230 of 1988 dated 2-11-1988 at Police Station Gowalmandi, Lahore under Article 3/4 of Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order IV of 1979.
2. The learned counsel contends for bail on the ground that the trial of the accused has not concluded within one year and, therefore, under the provision of the third proviso of subsection (1) of section 497, Cr.P.C. The accused is entitled to bail. It was further submitted that the delay in the conclusion of the trial has not been occasioned because of the conduct of the petitioner. In this respect, reliance was placed on Nazir Hussain v. Ziaul Haq and others 1983 SCMR 72. Wherein it was held that grant of bail after the expiry of certain specified period and under certain conditions was made a matter of right and not only of discretion and it was further held therein that the word 'shall' in the third proviso of subsection (1) of section 497, Cr.P.C. Does not mean 'may'. Therefore, the accused charged under section 302, P.P.C. Was bailed out.
' The second case relied upon was Ghulam Sarwar v. The State, Criminal Appeal No,65 of 1989.
Wherein the accused charged under Article 3/4 of the Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order, 1979, was admitted to bail on the ground that the benefit of the proviso can be denied when there is something in the offender who is a previous convict or is a hardened, desperate or dangerous criminal, and these requirements were not made out in the said case.
3. The learned AA-G., on the other hand, has opposed the grant of bail on the ground that the offence charged with, entails punishment of life imprisonment but failed to point out either that the petitioner was not in custody for more than one year or that the delay in the conclusion of the trill had been occasioned by the accused/petitioner, nor that he is a hardened, desperate or dangerous criminal.
4. In view of what has been stated above, the trial of the petitioner not having been concluded within one year, and as he is not a hardened, desperate or dangerous criminal and as the delay in the conclusion of the trial has not been occasioned because of the conduct of the petitioner, therefore, placing reliance on the authorities cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner is hereby admitted to bail in the sum of Rs,50,000 (Rupees Fifty thousand only) with two sureties in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court.