1. ' Exemption application allowed subject to all just exceptions.
2. Bail application on behalf of the applicants was moved before IInd Additional Sessions Judge, Larkana which was rejected by the same learned Judge on 15th July, 1997. They have approached this Court for bail.
2. ' Brief facts of the case are that Manzoor Ali Magan on 28-12-1993 lodged the F.I.R. Bearing No, 156 of 1993 with B-Section Police Station, alleging therein that Qurban Ali son of Sarai Allah Ditto Magan aged about 50 years is his elder brother who is residing together with him. On the day of incident in the morning, complainant, his brother Qurban Ali, Bashir Ahmed, and Hazoor Bux altogether went outside the Otaq. Qurbal Ali was ahead of them when at about 10-00 a.m. Qurban Ali went outside the door of Otaq, complainant saw that Khadim Hussain, Khalid Hussain. Both sons of Shar Muhammad Mangan, resident of Ghogharo were standing duly armed with pistols 'and both accused abused Qurban Ali and told him that there is an old enmity between them and that today they will murder him and both the accused fired from their pistols directly at Qurban Ali which hit him who while raising cries fell down on the ground. Complainant party raised cries, on the cries and fire-arm reports S.H.O., Police Station B-Section alognwith his staff and other persons were attracted. Seeing them coming, accused started running towards western side. Thereafter, complainant party and police party chased the accused so as to catch hold of them and actually caught hold both of them alongwith pistols. Complainant party then went and saw Qurban Ali having received firearm injuries on his head, both shoulders, chest, was bleeding and expired.
3. Leaving the witnesses over the dead body complainant lodged the F.I.R.
4. ' Applicants have approached this Court for bail on the statutory ground of delay. That trial has not yet concluded with no fault of accused/applicants. The learned counsel for the applicant refers (1)
5. 1996 PCr.LJ 1269, in which it has been held that despite the continued detention of accused for more than two years his trial had not so far concluded and delay so occasioned was not the result of any act or omission by him or any other person acting on his behalf or in exercise of any right or privilege under any law for the time being in force (2) 1997 PCr.LJ 411, accused linguishing in jail for more than two years and he was not responsible for the inordinate delay in the conclusion of the trial. Statutory benefit available to the accused could not be withheld unless he was shown to be disentitled to the same by virtue of law itself. Accused was granted bail, (3) 1996 SCM R 172, in this matter petitioner approached the Honourable Supreme Court of Pakistan, in leave to appeal against the order of a learned Judge in Chamber dated 3-8-1995 whereby bail was granted to Rab-Nawaz respondent No,1 .
6. ' The brief prosecution matter of the case was that Khushi Muhammad lodged the F.I.R on 10-1-1991 stating therein that while he alongwith Moula Bux his brother, Muhammad Anwar, and Mst.
7. Sardaran were cutting the fodder near his Dera. All of sudden Rab Nawaz Mirza Machhi armed with .12 bore guns, Mohri armed with .12 bore pistol, Maqbool Qooli, Mirza and Toora armed with lathies came there. Rab Nawaz raised Lalkara and thereafter, fired at Moula Bux hitting on his chest. Mirza Machhi fired at Muhammad Anar hitting on his right thigh. Rab Nawaz fired another shot hitting Muhammad Anar on his right arm. Moori fired at Muhammad Anar hitting on his hip. Motive alleged was that Rab Nawaz was desperate and man of bad character whom Moula Bux had forbidden to come to their locality on account of which two days earlier Rab Nawaz stripped off Moula Bux's clothes and gave him beatings. Moula Bux reported it to his son and relatives and apprehending that they would take revenge Rab Nwaz alongwith co-accused came and committed the murder.
8. ' Bail application was moved before the learned Judge in Chamber and was contended that respondent Rab Nawaz was arrested on 5-1-1992, subsequently escaped on 17-6-1992 and was again re-arrested on 18-1-1994, thus a total period of two years having been passed, he was entitled to bail as a matter of right under the third proviso of subsection (1) of section 497, Cr.P.C.
9. And further that learned counsel pointed out that prosecution witnesses have been examined and in such circumstances bail should not be cancelled. In this background of the matter Khushi Muhammad petitioner approached the Honourable Supreme Court of Pakistan, wherein their Lordships observed as under:-- ' "Admittedly respondent No,1 had escaped from the custody and was rearrested more than 1/1-2 years afterwards. This act itself was sufficient to refuse the exercise of discretion vested in the Court. In such circumstances it is not necessary to enter into the merits of the case or to make any observation in it and therefore no prejudice would be caused during trial. Further that two years period has been calculated by adding the period of detention respondent No,1 had passed before he absconded and after his arrest. The third proviso relied upon by the learned counsel for the respondent No,1 speaks of continuous period of detention and not by adding intermittent periods caused by the illegal and unlawful act of the accused. The impugned order set aside. The bail granted to respondent No,1 was cancelled. Non-bailable warrants were issued for his arrest."
(4) 1997 SCM R 1097: In this matter according to F.I.R. Incident happened on 3-5-1994 at about 1-30 p.m. When the complainant and a chowkidar of the Office of Saving Centre, New Karachi, reported that he had gone to his house for taking tea. When he returned after 15 minutes a boy whose name he did not know but could identify him, came outside and told him that he has come from the head office. He asked him to open the shutter of the Saving Centre which the complainant refused and asked him to come in the morning. The boy went away.
10. ' On 3-5-1994 at 11-00 p.m. The same boy came alongwith 8/9 boys with the muffled faces. The three persons with the muffled faces caught hold of him and snatched the keys of Centre. Three of them stood by side and asked him not to raise any noise or to runaway otherwise he would be killed. All other persons opened lock of the shutter of the Centre, sprinkled pertrol on the office furniture and put it on fire and were raising slogns of Jeay Mohajar. While running away they took away .12 bore gun. In F.I.R he suspected one person whom he could identify and the other 8/9 persons had committed the crime at the instance of M.Q.M. Leader Altaf Hussain. In this case accused was arrested on 3-5-1994 and charge was not framed against the petitioner who submitted application for bail before the Special Court, on refusal bail application was submitted before this Court which was rejected by impugned order dated 12-9-1996. Keeping in view the continuous custody of two years in detention their Lordships of Supreme Court were pleased to grant bail.
11. ' Mr. Abdul Fatah Mughal on behalf of A.A.-G raises no objection for the grant of bail application.
12. ' It would be pertinent to refer observations made by learned Second Additional Sessions Judge, Larkana rejecting the bail order, dated 15th July, 1997 which is as follows:-- ' "The record shows that after committing the murder of deceased Qurban Ali, both the applicants/accused were apprehended by the complainant party and police party at the spot alongwith the crime weapons, on 28-12-1993. The case was received in this Court by way of transfer for disposal according to law on 29-5-1994. Charge was framed against the accused on 16-6-1994.
13. Thereafter, though the P.Ws. Were attending the Court but the defence counsel was moving the application for adjournments, and also on 18-8-1994 accused Khalid moved application from District Jail, Larkana that the trial of this case be conducted inside Jail as they apprehend danger to their life. On 9-3-1995 the Notification was received from Home Department for holding trial of this case inside jail. Again the accused moved application to the Honourable High Court for transfer of the case from this Court and hence due to the above reasons the case was being adjourned from time to time. On 8-2-1996 the complainant and two P.Ws. Were examined inside District Jail, Larkana but their cross-examination was reserved on the request of defence counsel and on 1-8-1996 both the accused persons were transferred from District Larkana to Central Prison Sukkur. During the trial of the case, the applicants/accused have also changed some Advocate to get the case adjourned and avoiding to proceed with the case, on one or the other pretext, though mostly on the dates for hearings, the witnesses were in attendance. If the period of adjournments sought by the accused persons themselves or on their behalf by their advocates, is deducted from the actual detention period, then they have not yet completed the period of two years.
14. ' In view of the above circumstances, the delay in conclusion of the trial, is on the part of the accused and not on the part of prosecution, as the counsel for the accused have frequently been moving applications for adjournment though the examination-in-chief of complainant and two P.Ws., was recorded on 8-2-1996, and whenever they and other P.Ws. Attend the Court, the defence counsel moved application for adjournment hence the delay in the trial is caused by the accused persons. Accordingly at this stage the applicants/accused are not entitled to the concession of bail on the ground of statutory delay in the trial."
15. The case is being adjourned at the request of the applicants/accused or learned counsel appearing/acting on their behalf.
16. The examination-in-chief of the witnesses have been recorded but cross examination has been reserved at the request of the counsel appearing for the applicants.
17. At the request of the accused/applicants Government, accordingly, was pleased to order that trial of the case should take place inside the jail. The presence of witness and their non-examination at the request of the accused/applicants clearly shows that delay which has occasioned in the conclusion of the trial is clearly attributed to the accused/applicants.
18. With due respect to the case-law referred by Mr. Muhammad Anwar Durrani I am of the considered opinion that facts of the cases referred by Mr. Durrani and discussed hereinabove in any case have no relevance to the facts of the case in hand. The state counsel no doubt has raised no objection for grant of concession of bail, but in view of the history of the case, adjournments so sought by the accused/applicants, in any case under the above facts and circumstances, does not observe to be released on bail. Consequently, application is dismissed.
19. However, trial Court is required to take steps to conclude the trial expeditiously