JUDGMENT MUHAMMAD NASEEM, J.- Farid Bakhsh complainant got recorded FIR No. 136 dated 20.10.1993 at Police Station City Rajanpur under section 324 PPC wherein 1 he narrated that Eisa (deceased of this case) was challaned in the murder case of Goorha son of Mitha, Caste Khosa on the basis of the occurrence which took place about 11 months before. Eisa was admitted to bail. Allah Bakhsh petitioner-accused son of Mitha, a real brother of Goorha deceased of the aforesaid case, was annoyed and nursed the grudge. On 20.10.1993 Eisa deceased of this case went to Sessions Court. Rajanpur alongwith Farid Bakhsh complainant. Muhammad Bakhsh and Rasool Bakhsh, relatives of Eisa deceased, had also arrived.
At about 8.45 a.m. They were sitting on the business place of Rao Muhammad Siddique, Advocate.
Allah Bakhsh accused arrived there while armed with a pistol who raised the lalkara. He fired at Eisa which hit his back. The aforesaid persons saw the occurrence. The respondent-accused did not let them go close to the place Eisa was present. The police officials namely Muhammad Ramzan Constable, Gulzar Ahmad Constable, Abid Hussan Constable, Muhammad Suleman Constable arid Abdul Qadir Steno caught hold of Allah Bakhsh alongwith the pistol. Rao Muhammad Siddique, Advocate and others also saw the occurrence.
2. As expressed above, Allah Bakhsh accused-respondent was arrested at the spot. Eisa expired afterwards and section 324 PPC has been substituted by sections 302, 440 PPC. Afterwards the challan for the prosecution of Allah Bakhsh under sections 302/440, 324/186/353 PPC has been submitted.
3. Allah Bakhsh respondent-accused filed his application for his admission to bail which was dismissed on merits on 27.2.1995 by the then Sessions Judge. Rajanpur. However, he filed his application afresh on 9.1.1996 for his admission to bail on statutory ground due to his continuous detention for over a period of two years from the date of his arrest. The present Sessions Judge gave his opinion that the trial against the accused had not yet commenced and that due to the lapse of a period of two years he had become entitled to be released on bail as of right under proviso III to sub-section (1) of section 497 Cr.P.C. Feeling aggrieved Farid Bakhsh petitioner- complainant filed this petition on 2.2.1996 for the cancellation of the bail.
4. I have heard die learned counsel for the parties as well as- learned Stale counsel and gone through the record before me. Learned counsel for Farid Bakhsh petitioner-complainant argued that the petitioner was responsible for delay where on the trial' could not commence as he did not engage his learned counsel from the beginning and after the lapse of some dates he intimated the Court that he desired to engage his learned counsel. He added that the case was not being taken seriously by the trial Court. He expressed the opinion that the respondent could be termed as a desperate criminal as he went to the precincts of Sessions-Court, Rajanpur who took the law in his hands and fired at Eisa deceased while he was sitting in the chamber of Rao Muhammad Siddique, Advocate. Rajanpur. He maintained that the discretion should have not been used in favour of the respondent in the circumstances. The learned counsel for the State supported the learned counsel for the petitioner- complainant. Learned counsel for Allah Bakhsh respondent-accused argued that the delay m the matter of commencement of the trial cannot be attributed to the respondent- accused who obtained some dates and that on many dates the trial Court whs on leave. He added that the discretion has rightly been used in favour of Allah Bakhsh respondent-accused especially when he is neither hardened nor desperate or dangerous criminal as no other case of the instant nature stands registered against him and his mind was brewing simply due to the reason that his real brother was murdered by Lisa deceased of this case. After giving my serious and anxious consideration to the matter in hand I am of the view that the learned Sessions Judge, Rajanpur has admitted Allah Bakhsh respondent-accused to bail without any legal justification. A perusal of the interlocutory orders passed by the trial Court has made out that the trial is being conducted in a perfunctory manner. I am tempted to express that sessions trials should be given seriousness which they deserve. In the instant matter learned Sessions Judge, Rajanpur remained on leave on 25.5.1994, 4.7.1994, 31.1.1995. .25.4.1995, 29.5.1995, 22.8.1995, 14.9.1995 and I7.l0.l995. On 9.1.1995 the accused requested for adjournment to engage some learned counsel. Same was the position on 24.1.1995. On 15.2.1995 Allah Bakhsh accused intimated the Court that he had not engaged any learned counsel. On 7.3.1995 the accused intimated the Court that he had engaged the learned Advocate who shall appear on the next date. On 8.5.1995 learned counsel for the accused was not present. Same was the position on 13.6.1995. The adjournment was granted on 12.7.1995 due to the absence of the learned defence counsel. The resume of the proceedings projected above have made out that the prosecution is not responsible for causing the delay in the final disposal of the case. I am aware that there is the common saying that an accused is a favourite child of law However, at the same time I hold the view that a complainant is also not devoid of the justice of the Court keeping in view the shape of scale of justice. The case was not being processed with all the seriousness by the Presiding Officer and the delay was also caused by Allah Bakhsh respondent because he obtained many adjournments to engage some learned Advocate for his defence and on some dates his learned counsel did not appear. In the circumstances, the lapse of the period of two years is no ground for the admission of this petitioner to bail on the statutory ground. If a Presiding Officer has loose control and does not show the seriousness towards the disposal of the sessions case/trial as was in the recent past good days; I must express my view that the discretion on the aforesaid statutory ground cannot be exercised in favour of the accused person especially when he was also responsible for causing the delay as in the instant matter. No doubt the brother of Allah Bakhsh respondent-accused was allegedly murdered by Eisa deceased of this case and his mind must be brewing and he himself be feeling disturbed; yet this aspect of the matter is not enough to use the discretion in favour of the respondent-accused as the same is the motive for the occurrence.
5. Technically and legally speaking due to the registration of tire case Allah Bakhsh respondent- accused is a criminal person at present unless he is acquitted. He may be an innocent person unless he is convicted, but in the circumstances of the instant matter he can well be termed as a desperate criminal. He went to the sacred precincts of Sessions Court where justice is.
Administered to the litigant public. He went to the chamber of Rao Muhammad Siddique, Advocate, Rajanpur and within his sight as well as the other PWs took the law in his hands and fired at Eisa deceased. Rao Muhammad Siddique, Advocate had the licence to practise. The occurrence took place in broad day light in Sessions Court premises at 8.45 a.m. On 20.10.1993. The taking of law in his hands in Sessions Courts' premises can be effected by a desperate, person As such according to proviso IV to sub-section (1) of section 497 Cr.P.C, the petitioner can well be termed as a desperate criminal and even after the lapse of statutory period of two years from the date of his arrest he was not entitled to be admitted to bail. The present position is that two PWs have been examined by the Sessions Judge, Rajanpur which means that the trial has been started.
6. The only irresistible conclusion which can be drawn from the aforesaid state of affairs and discussion would be that Allah Bakhsh respondent-accused was not entitled to be admitted to bail and the discretion used in his favour by the learned Sessions Judge, Rajanpur was simply unjustified. Consequently 1 accept this ~ application, set aside the impugned order dated 29.1.1996, dismiss the application tiled by Allah Bakhsh respondent-accused for his admission to bail and cancel his bail. Allah Bakhsh respondent-accused has been put under the custody of the Naib Court for handing over* to the guard posted in Lahore High Court, Multan Bench. Multan to be sent to District Jail, Rajanpur with the direction to produce him before the learned Sessions Judge, Rajanpur on 6.5.1996.
7. The learned Sessions Judge, Rajanpur is directed to conduct the trial of the case with all the seriousness and to dispose of the same till 30.6.1996 under intimation to the Additional Registrar of this Court.