1. ' RAJA AFRASIAB KHAN, J.---On 16th of December, 1993 at 11-00 a.m., a case under Articles 3 and 4 of Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order, 1979 was registered with Anti-Narcotics Task Force Police Station District Peshawar against Shah Alam, Rehman Shah, Muhammad Ali and Afsarul Mulk for the alleged recovery of 63 k.g. Of heroin. On an information, vehicle No,1333/Karachi was searched.
2. Resultantly, aforesaid heroin was recovered from its secret cavities. It was also known that Rehman Shah, Muhammad All and Afsarul Mulk, the owners of the drug were following the aforesaid vehicle in Suzuki Auto No,T-4000/Karachi. On sight, this car sped away. It was, however, followed and apprehended by the raiding party near Tariq Road, F.G. Technical School, Peshawar. Bail petition was moved by the accused. A learned Additional Sessions Judge, Peshawar vide his order dated 16-5-1995 dismissed the petition to the extent of Shah Alam and Afsarul Mulk while granted bail to Muhammad All and Rehman Shah. A learned Judge in the Peshawar High Court vide his order, dated 24th of September 1995 dismissed the bail petitions filed by Shah Alam and Afsarul Mulk as well as the application to cancel the bail already allowed to the accused. This petition for leave to appeal has been instituted. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that petitioner has continuously been in jail for the last more than 22 months. Trial against him has not yet been concluded. Bail application has been opposed by the learned Law Officer.
3. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, we have not been persuaded to interfere inasmuch as the petitioner was caught red-handed and huge quantity of heroin was recovered from him. The allegations, indeed, are horrible in nature. The case surely falls under the prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C. The argument that the petitioner is behind the bars for more than 22 months and as such, he has earned a right to be released on bail, is not tenable for the reason that it was the duty of the learned counsel to place on record the interim orders so far passed in the case to determine the actual responsibility for the delay in the conclusion of the trial. A ground of delay for grant of bail has been mentioned but in its support, no proof has been placed on record.
4. This case was adjourned to enable the learned counsel to give us copy of the interim orders but he failed to do so for the reasons best known to him. The withholding of copy of the interim orders would show that dealy in conclusion of the trial Court be attributed to the petitioner. At this stage, learned Law Officer states that entire prosecution evidence has been recorded and statement of the accused is to be recorded. He adds that it could not be done so because the case file was lying in the High Court. It is said that the file was not taken back by the messenger/person who brought it for its perusal by the High Court. In such like cases, practice is that the files which are summoned, are immediately returned after their inspection. This being so, there is nothing on record to show that the petitioner was not at fault for the C delay which occasioned in the conclusion of the case.
5. There is, therefore, no substance in this petition which is dismissed.