' The petitioner who is involved in a ease under sections 337A(i) and 337F(ii) and 324, P.P.C. Arising out of F.I.R. No,369, dated 17-9-1992, registered at Police Station City Hafizabad, seeks to be released on bail.
2. The petitioner is alleged to have launched a murderous assault on Muhammad Azim and caused as many as 12 injuries with razor on different parts of his body.
3. Learned counsel contended that the petitioner is behind the bars since 26-9-1992, without any progress in the trial and on the ground of delay in the conclusion of trial, he is entitled to the grant of bail. Learned counsel further conceded that the injuries sustained by the injured P.W. Do not make a case under section 324, P.P.C. Hence the trial Court has erred in law while declining the grant of bail to the petitioner. Placed reliance on 1994 PCr.LJ 12.
4. Learned counsel for the State assisted by the police officer has opposed this application and submitted that delay in the trial of the case has occurred mainly due to the non-availability of the presiding officer. He also submitted that the injured P.W. Received 12 injuries on vital parts of his body through razor, which prima facie shows the intention of the petitioner that he intended to cause Qatl-i-Amd of the victim, hence the case falls within the provision of section 324, P.P.C. And he is not entitled to the grant of bail. Learned counsel further submitted that the presiding officer is available and instead of releasing the petitioner on bail, direction may be given to the trial Court to conclude the trial on priority basis. Learned counsel has also brought to my notice Ordinance XIX of 1994, promulgated on 10-3-1994, which has deleted third and fourth provisos of section 497, Cr.P.C., on the basis of which bail could be granted to an accused person on the ground of delay.
5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length and have perused the record. In the presence of Ordinance XIX of 1994, which has taken away the powers of the Court to release accused persons on bail on the ground of delay in the conclusion of the trial, the discretion still lies with the Court to release accused persons on bail in offences which fall within the prohibitory clause, of course, keeping in view the circumstances of each case. In the present case, as observed earlier, the petitioner caused 12 injuries with razor on the vital parts of the body of the victim, which shows his intention to commit the crime. Thus I am of the view that the petitioner is not entitled to the grant of bail on the ground of delay. However, as the presiding officer is available now, hence I direct the learned trial Court to conclude the trial against the petitioner within eight months positively. With these observations, this petition is dismissed.