MUHAMMAD NASEEM CHAUDHRI, J- Crime Case No. 370 dated 26.5.1995 stands registered at Police Station Saddar Sheikhupura under sections 302/324/148/149 P.P.C, at the instance of Mushtaq Ahmad complainant- about the murder of his son Ishaq Muhammad Khan at the hands of Saif-ur- Rehman petitioner and his co-accused who were armed with lethal weapons at the alleged time of occurrence. Saif-ur-Rehman petitioner is said to be armed with double barrel 12- bore gun and the injury attributed to him is that he hit the right arm of the deceased. Saif-ur-Rehman petitioner was arrested on 19.6.1995. He moved the trial Court for his admission to bail but could not succeed.
Hence he has filed this petition on merits as well as on statutory ground.
2. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties as well as the learned State counsel and gone through the record before me. The main contention of the learned counsel for Saif-ur-Rehman petitioner is that the injury attributed to him is on the right arm of the deceased which is not a vital, part. As rightly expressed by the learned counsel for the State, there is no distinction of the place of injury as vital or non-vital part in a murder case. Legally the presence of the accused is to be taken into account if he is attributed any role as well as injury on-the person of the deceased. In view of the aforesaid aspect of the matter. I express the view that prima facie the presence of Saif-ur- Rehman petitioner at the place of occurrence at the alleged time of occurrence. Stands established and the aforesaid reasoning is of no avail to him for the purpose of admission to bail.
3. With respect to statutory ground it was canvassed by the learned counsel for the petitioner that he was arrested on 19.6.1995 and a period of to years has elapsed since his arrest who is not responsible for the delay in the matter. A perusal of the interlocutory orders as well as the order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge on 24.6.1997 dismissing the bail plea of Saif-ur- Rehman petitioner has made out that he remained admitted in the Jail Hospital and on many dates was not produced. As such the delay in the conclusion of the trial cannot be attributed to the prosecution. Consequently I hold that on statutory ground as well Saif-ur-Rehman petitioner is not entitled to be admitted to bail.
4. However, at this stage it can safely be expressed that the trial is being conducted in a perfunctory manner. In recent past a Sessions Trial was concluded within a period of 4 to 6 days. In the instant matter the charge was framed on 23.5.1997. The trial Court is directed to hold and conclude the trial with all the seriousness. In this regard I would express that for the disposal of important cases of the instant nature i.e. Sessions Cases the following type of provision can be put in to motion to secure the positive results
(i) It is provided in rule 9 of Chapter XXVII of the Punjab Police Rules, 1934 that "in all important cases sent for trial, the Investigating Officer' shall, whenever possible, attend and personally instruct the prosecuting inspector who shall prepare the "Police Brief". On the basis of the aforesaid rule which has to be followed by the police the Investigating Officer himself has or he may depute any responsible subordinate to' attend to Court so that the presence of the prosecution witnesses is procured.
(ii) For the guidance of the subordinate Courts the rules have been incorporated in Chapter XXIV Part-B of the High Court Rules and Orders Volume-III for holding the Sessions Trials. I would express that Session Trial should be given the seriousness which they deserve. The trial Court should fix these cases on specified days in a week and shall not crowd their cause-list for those days; It is simply surprising that the charge was framed on 23.5.1997 and till today only one witness has been examined.
5. For what has been said above, I dismiss this petition. However, I direct the trial Court to finally dispose of the case till 30.1.1998 under intimation to the Registrar of this Court. I must express that I have given a sufficient time to the learned trial Court even though in the past, as expressed-above, the Sessions Trials were concluded within 4 to 6 days and it is hoped that the matter shall be dealt with all the seriousness.