MUHAMMAD NASEEM, J.- The sister of Allah Ditta co-accused of Haq Nawaz petitioner and Muhammad Iqbal co-accused was married to Muhammad Races complainant. Unfortunately the relations between the spouses became strained. Muhammad Raees contracted the second marriage. Due to that on 7.2.1995 at 7.30 P.M. Haq Nawaz petitioner and Muhammad Iqbal co- accused alongwith Allah Ditta co-accused (released on bail) are said to have surprised Amin, Taj Muhammad and Muhammad Raees complainant. At that time Haq Nawaz petitioner and Muhammad Iqbal co-accused were allegedly armed with 7 nun rifle and l2 bore gun. Allah Ditta raised a lalkara. Ineffective firing was made. There was grappling. The barrel of the rifle was hit by Haq Nawaz petitioner- accused on the nose of Muhammad Rasees complainant. Allah Ditta caught hold of Taj Muhammad PW in his Jappha. Haq Nawaz petitioner and Muhammad Iqbal co- accused are further alleged to have given the butt blows. The persons of the Chak arrived at the spot after hearing the firing. Thereafter the accused persons made good their escape on the motor-cycle. About the occurrence FIR No, 34, dated 8.2.1995 stands registered at Police Station Mitroo, District Vehari under section 324/34 PPC and under section 13(a) of the Arms Ordinance, 1965. On 28.6.1995 the bail plea of Haq Nawaz petitioner was dismissed by this Court. He filed applications before the lower Courts for his admission to bail but remained unsuccessful. He has filed this petition in this Court to be admitted to bail.
2. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned State counsel and gone through the record before me. The only ground agitated by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that this petitioner was arrested on 14.2.1995 while today is 3.3.1996 and that the continuous period of detention of Haq Nawaz petitioner has exceeded one year. According to him under Clause (a) proviso 3 to subsection (1) of section 497 Cr.P.C, an accused of any offence not punishable with death is entitled to be admitted to bail if the continuous period of his detention exceeds one year and whose trial for such offence has not concluded. Ii is mentioned in proviso 4. To sub-section (1) of section 497 Cr.P.C, that the provisions of 3rd proviso to the said section are not applicable to a previously convicted offender or to a person who in the opinion of the Court is a hardened, desparate or dangerous criminal. It has been canvassed by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has earned a valuable right in view of the aforesaid aspect of the matter. On the contrary the contention of the learned State counsel is that the petitioner is directly involved in the occurrence whose name is mentioned in the FIR and that he is not entitled to be admitted to bail.
My view is that the assertion raised by the learned counsel for Haq Nawaz petitioner has to be given the weight. Due to the lapse of the statutory period of one year about his continuous detention it is held that the petitioner has earned a valuable right for his admission to hail as there is nothing before this Court to make out that he is a previously convicted offender or is a hardened, desparate or dangerous criminal. The reasoning adopted by the learned State counsel cannot be given the weight in view of the matter that the petitioner, as expressed above, has earned the valuable legal right tor the purpose of his admission to bail on the statutory ground of his continuous detention for a period of one year and whose trial has not yet started even after the submission of the challan which is the admitted fact.
3. For what has been said above, I accept this application and admit Haq Nawaz petitioner to bail in the sum of Rs. 15,000/- (rupees fifteen thousand) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Additional Sessions Judge, Mailsi. District Vehari.
4. Copy dasti subject to payment of usual charges, if desired.