1. Applicant Muhammad Hussain s/o Abbas Khan is arrested in Criminal No.200 of 1991 under section 302, P.P.C.. He was arrested on 6-2-1991.
2. First bail application moved on behalf of the applicant was rejected by the trial Court of II- Additional Sessions Judge Karachi (West) on 7-11-1993. His Bail Application No.1029 of 1993 was dismissed as not pressed on 10-1-1994 and a direction was given to the trial Court to complete the proceedings of the case within a period of two months. In view of the delay in disposal of the case second bail application on behalf of the applicant was moved before the trial' Court which again was dismissed on 22-2-1993. Applicant then filed Criminal Appeal No.230 of 1993 before this Court, which again was dismissed as not pressed by order dated 18-4-1993 and this time again the trial Court was directed to complete the proceedings within three months. Because the proceedings could not be completed, the third bail application was repeated before the trial Court and the same is dismissed vide Annexure 'A' but the date is not shown in the order, may be through a typing error although the Advocate in the present bail application before this Court has shown the date of such order being 7-4-1994. It is in this background and the series of various orders either by the trial Court or by this Court that present application has been filed.
3. The F.I.R. Was lodged by one Noor Khan at P.S. Saeedabad on 6-12-1991 who stated that on the day of incident at about 7-30 a.m. One Muhammad Akram came and informed him that Muhammad Sher was lying dead in his room and somebody seemed to have caused his murder. The name of the accused or of any suspect was not given. Applicant was arrested on 6-12-1991 and he is said to have given judicial confession regarding his guilt which was recorded by the Magistrate after 14 days of his arrest.
4. I have heard the learned advocate for the applicant and the counsel appearing for the State. It is contended on, behalf of the applicant that the applicant has been in jail for more than 2/1/2 years but the trial has not concluded for no fault of the applicant. It is then argued and vociferously that the directions of this Court twice given to the learned trial Court for disposal of the case have not been complied with and in the circumstances applicant is entitled to grant of bail. In support of the second contention learned Advocate has referred to the cases of Abdul Khan v. The State (1988 P.Cr.L. 289), Hamayun Butt and another v. The State (1988 PCr.LJ 1323), Saeed alias SaeeD v. The State (PLJ 1975 Cr.P.C. (Lah.) 371) and Dr. Buland Iqbal v. The State (1985 PCr.LJ 2845). In all these cases because the directions of the High Court were not complied with and no concerte staps were taken by the trial Court to finalise the trial, bail to the accused in the said cases was granted.
5. Mr. Ashiq Raza, learned Advocate appearing for the State, while opposing the bail application has argued that in his judicial confession the applicant has confessed his guilt and has further suggested that once more a direction be given to the trial Court to complete the proceedings.
6. I have gone through the record and the earlier orders passed by me in the two bail applications referred to above and find that the directions given twice have not been complied with. The learned trial Court seems to have taken steps to procure the attendance of the witnesses but whatsoever be the reason the fact remains that the applicant is languishing in jail for more than two years and the trial of the case against him is not concluded. The judicial confession is recorded after 14 days of his arrest but no observations can be made with regard to the same as it might prejudice the case of either side. In the circumstances I find that the case of the applicant requires further enquiry and I am inclined to grant him bail. The applicant shall be so released if he furnishes one surety in the sum of Rs.1,00,000 (rupees one lac) with P.R. Bond is the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court.