1. ' This is an application for the grant of bail by Zahur Ahmad, Naasir Ahmad, Naseer Ahmad and Manzur Ahmad, sons of Umar Hayat. They are accused of offences under sections 148, 302/307/149, P. P. C. Vide an F. I. R. Dated 18-2-1970. The matter was then referred to a Military Court from where the file came back to the ordinary Courts on 22-3-1971. The evidence was summoned by the learned Committing Magistrate for 5-4-1971. It is now the last date of February, 1973 but the inquiry has still not finished and four out of the 14 witnesses cited still remain to be examined. The petitioners also filed a bail application (Criminal Misc. No, 340/B of 1972) in February, 1972 which was dismissed by my learned brother Mr. Justice Attaullah Sajjad on 30-3-1972. It will be useful to reproduce paragraph No, 2 of that order which reads as follows : "There is no denying that there has been colossal and avoidable delay in this case partly because of the non-appearance of the witnesses and partly because the learned Magistrate cognizant of the case was taking an indifferent attitude with regard to the performance of his duties. I would like to know when Mr. Mohammad Mahmood Shah became cognizant of this case and how long Rana Iftikhar Ahmad dealt with it."
2. ' Earlier, as stated above the petitioners' bail application was rejected on merits as they are said to have given fatal blows on the deceased. The present application is however only on the ground of delay in the Commitment proceedings. Mr. Justice Ataullah Sajjad is not doing Single Bench cases.
3. As such I have no option but to hear and dispose of the application myself. The learned counsel for the petitioners, however, submits that the policy of law is not to keep under trial persons in detention without trial for an indefinite period. In support of this contention he has cited Riasat Ali v.
4. Ghulam Muhammad (1) and Manzoor Khan v. Kamir (2). In Manzoor Khan's case their Lordships of the Supreme Court observed as follows: "It is not the intention of the law to keep under-trial prisoners, including those charged with capital offences, without trial for inordinately {{FOOT NOTE}}
(1) PLD 1968 SC 353 (2) 1972 SCMR 207 {{FOOT NOTE}} ' long periods without any satisfactory explanation or reason to justify that action."
2. From the above observation of the Supreme Court, it would be clear that the delay by itself is sufficient ground for the grant of bail to the accused/petitioners notwithstanding the merits of the case. It is evident that the accused/petitioners had suffered detention for three years for n fault to their part, 1, therefore, feel that they are entitled to the grant of bail on the ground of delay. They are, therefore, released on bail on their furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs, 10,000 (Rupees ten thousand) each with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Inquiry Magistrate.