1. According to the F. I. R. Deceased Khan Bahadur was fired at with the revolver by the applicant on 9-6-1972 at about 11 a. In. As a result of injuries deceased Khan Bahadur died on the next day.
2. Accordingly a case under section 302/34, P. P. C. Was registered against the applicant and his co- accused. The applicant's case is that a day prior to the incident he had appeared in the Police Station himself and lodged a report against the deceased, his father Lal Khan, his uncle Shamir Khan and Mohammad Khan to the effect that they had injured the applicant and his co-accused.
3. A case was accordingly registered under section 324/34, P. P. C. Against the deceased and other persons after necessary investigation. There are as many as four counter cases besides the case filed by the applicant and his co-accused in which proceedings have not yet started as reported by the learned trial Court.
4. ' Earlier a bail application had been submitted by the applicant which was dismissed as withdrawn by me but I had directed the learned trial Court to conclude the proceedings within one month.
5. This one month period was in addition to three months period fixed for the conclusion of the proceedings earlier on 4-8-1976, while dismissing the first bail application. This is now the third bail application and the allegation is that the learned Sessions Judge has not been able to conclude the proceedings in the case within the period allowed to him for this purpose. 1 had sent for a report from the learned trial Judge which has been sent by him. The report reveals that appreciable progress has been made by the case and except the examination of the investigating officer, the evidence of the remaining witnesses has already been concluded. However, the learned trial Judge has observed in the report that he would like to dispose of this am and the counter cases together.
6. Otherwise, if the instant case is decided prior to the disposal of counter cases prejudice is likely to be caused to the accused in those cases. The proceedings in the counter cases have not so far started and looking to the work load with the trial Court, it cannot be expected that the counter cases would take less than two years to be concluded. The applicant has been in Jail since 1972 and to allow him to remain in custody for another two years would be against the spirit of law and justice.
2. The learned counsel appearing for the State has also conceded that on the point of delay the applicant was entitled to be released on bail. In this connection I am further fortified by Noor and 6 others v. The State . In the precedent case a delay of four years was considered sufficient to allow bail to the accused persons. In the circumstances of the case I find it a fit case for the release of the applicant on bail. The learned trial Court shall release the applicant on bail subject to his furnishing one surety in the sum of Rs, 10,000 (Rupees ten thousand only) and P. R. Bonds in the like amount. 1975 P Cr. L J 641