' Briefly stated the facts are that the accused/petitioner Muhammad Azeem alongwith others stands charged under section 302/34/109, P.P.C. Vide F.I.R. No,196, dated 10-10-1996 registered at Police Station Batapur District Lahore for causing the intentional murder of Muhammad Sharif father of Muhammad Idrees complainant. The accused/petitioner approached the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Lahore, for the relief of bail, which was declined vide order, dated 25-3-1999. Hence the instant petition.
2. Arguments have been heard and record perused.
3. Contention of learned counsel for the accused/petitioner is that occurrence took place on 9-10- 1996 whereas the accused/petitioner was arrested on 2-11-1996 and since then is in judicial lock- up, that as the statutory period has elapsed and the trial has not concluded, so he is entitled to the relief of bail under third proviso to section 497(1), Cr.P.C. And places reliance upon Sher Ali alias Sheri v. The State (1998 SCM R 190), Muhammad Iqbal v. State (PLJ 1998 Cr.C. (Lahore) 1573), Abdul Hameed v. The State (1999 M LD 1333) and Panjal v. The State (1990 PCr.LJ 2051 (Karachi).
4. Conversely, bail application has been opposed on the ground that although statutory period, as enshrined in proviso third to section 497(1), Cr.P.0 has expired, yet the accused/petitioner is not entitled to the benefit of bail as the case falls within the purview of fourth proviso to section 497, Cr.P.C. It is further contended that trial has started and as many as nine P.Ws. Have been examined and only statements of two material witnesses i,e, Medical Officer and the Investigating Officer remain to be examined. It is further contended that the accused/petitioner is the main accused as he is responsible for causing the fatal shot to the deceased. It is asserted that accused/petitioner is a hardened and desperate criminal, as such he is not entitled to the relief of bail and referance is placed on Umar Draz and another v. The State (1997 SCM R 885), Shahjee v. The State (1999 PCr.LJ 1062) and Dilawar Khan v. The State (1998 PCr.LJ 18). It is further argued that delay per se in the disposal of cases is no ground to seek the relief, as such provision has been misused and its deletion has been recommended, as held in Sh. Liaqat Hussain and other v. Federation of Pakistan through Ministry of Law, Justice and Parliamentary Affairs, Islamabad and others (PLD 1999 SC 504).
5. Instant petition has been pressed mainly on the statutory ground as the accused/petitioner was arrested on 2-11-1996 and in spite of lapse of 2-1/2 years, the trial has not concluded. A perusal of the F.I.R. Reveals, that main and vital role has been attributed to the present accused/petitioner, who has been responsible for the death of the deceased. It has also come on record that trial has started and as many as nine P.Ws. Have been examined and out of the remaining P.Ws. Only two material witnesses i,e, Medical Officer and Investigating Officer remain to be examined. Thus, keeping in view the part attributed to the petitioner and stage of the trial, I am, not inclined to accede to the request of the petitioner. Accordingly, petition fails and is hereby dismissed.
However, the Trial Court is directed to conclude the trial within a period of three months from the receipt of this order. Record of the Trial Court be remitted immediately.
6. With this observation, the petition stands disposed of.