' This is an application moved under section 561-A, Cr.P.C. Seeking release of the petitioner on bail in a case registered against him and others under section 302/307/148/149, P.P.C. And 17(4) Hudood Ordinance, 1979, vide FIR No, 160 dated 22-5-1986 of Police Station Pabbi.
2. The petitioner is an approver in the case and has been allowed pardon by the District Magistrate.
His statement during the trial has also been recorded but the trial has not so far concluded, though a period of more than two years has elapsed.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner, contends that on the basis of statutory provision in section 497, Cr.P.C. To the effect that an accused person can be enlarged on bail if the trial has been delayed for more than two years for no fault of his, the petitioner is entitled to be admitted to bail because the trial has continued for more than two years and there is no prospect of its soon coming to an end. He further contends that the petitioner has adhered to the terms of pardon and testified as a witness disclosing the whole truth and was not responsible for delaying the trial. He referred to the case-law reported as 1978 PCr.LJ 682 and 1987 PCr.LJ 596 and contended that the bar contained in section 337(3) of Cr.P.C. Against the grant of bail was not absolute and the High Court in exercise of its inherent powers under section 561-A, Cr.P.C. Could intervene to avert the abuse of process of law.
4. Learned counsel for the State opposed the application referring to the plain terms of section 337(3), Cr.P.C.
5. The accused-petitioner was arrested on 15-6-1986 and has remained in custody ever since without any attempt on his part to delay the proceedings. Not only he has made his statement of confession but has also testified as a witness on the same lines keeping to the terms of pardon. On the ground of delay in the trial that has been for more than two years and for which no blame can be laid at his door, he can be allowed bail, notwithstanding the bar of section 337(3), Cr.P.C., because the bar is not absolute and in genuine cases can be bypassed where it appears that the process is being abused, as held in the case-law quoted above.
' Accordingly on account of delay in the proceedings for more than two years for which the petitioner in no way can be made responsible, I allow him bail in the sum of Rs, 30,000 with two sureties in the like amount each to the satisfaction of Illaqa/Duty Magistrate.