1. ' The F.I.R. In this case was registered on 12-6-1995 for offences under section 302, 337-F(ii), 337- A(ii), Qisas and Diyat Ordinance read with section 109, P.P.C. The previous bail application of applicants was rejected by this Court on 10-10-1995. The bail application has been repeated on ground of statutory delay.
2. ' Learned IVth Additional Sessions Judge, Hyderabad in his order, dated 2-9-1997 has mentioned as under:-- "Record further shows that the accused persons also sought adjournments on 5-10-1996 on the ground that their Advocate was not prepared. On 7-11-1996, accused sought adjournment on the ground that a private complaint has been filed against the complainant party.
3. ' Co-accused also sought adjournments on 4-1-1997, 18-6-1997, 12-7-1997. Under these circumstances it cannot be said that delay in the trial was not occasioned due to act of the accused persons. The benefit of 3rd proviso to section 497(1), Cr.P.C. Is available to the accused if the delay in proceedings has not been occasioned due to act or omission of the accused persons, therefore, the applicants/accused are not entitled for the benefit of 3rd proviso to section 497(1), Cr.P.C. The application is accordingly dismissed."
4. ' Learned Advocate for applicants submits that he has filed certified copy of the case diaries to show that the impugned order is not consistent with the diaries, for instance the learned trial Judge has mentioned that on 7-11-1996 accused sought adjournment on the ground that a private complaint has been filed against complainant party. The diary, dated 7-11-1996 shows that the accused/applicant Allah Dino and Haji were not produced by the Jail Authorities whereas accused Punhoon and Abdullah were present on bail. No P.Ws. Were present and adjournment application filed by Advocate for accused. The case was adjourned to 25-11-1996. Learned Advocate for applicants submits that the applicants/accused have not been produced by the jail authorities, therefore, this delay cannot be attributed to the applicants/accused. Likewise he has referred to inconsistency mentioned in the order of the learned IVth Additional Sessions Judge and the case diary. He, therefore, submits that the delay cannot be attributed to them and the 4th proviso is not attracted as police report and report of Jail Superintendent are available on record. There is nothing to show that the applicants are hardened, desperate and dangerous criminals. He places reliance on decisions reported in 1998 SCM R 228, 1997 SCM R 361, PLD 1995 SC 49 and 1996 PCr.LJ 863.
5. ' Learned State Counsel states that the reports of police and, Jail Authorities do not reveal that the 4th proviso is attracted.
6. The F.I.R. In this case was registered on 12-6-1995. Report of Jail Superintendent, Central Jail, Hyderabad, dated 13-8-1998 shows that U.T.Ps. Allah Dino and Haji both sons of Ramzan were confined in jail since 10-7-1995. This will show that both the applicants had remained in jail for more than three years and the trial has not concluded. Delay cannot be attributed to them because the case diary reveals that on the dates mentioned in the order of learned IVth Additional Sessions Judge accused were not produced by the jail authorities. 4th proviso is not attracted in this case, therefore, the applicants are entitled to bail. I, there for, grant bail to applicants subject to furnishing of surety in the sum of Rs,2,00,000 (Rupees two lacs) by each applicant and P.R. Bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of trial Court.