' The petitioners are involved in a case under section 324/452/337-A(vi)/337-A(ii)/ 34, P.P.C. Vide F.I.R. No, 28/98, dated 13-8-1998 at P.S. Pai Khel, District Mianwali for causing injuries to one Muhammad Nawaz while armed with hatchets. Out of them, Hameed Ullah and Nasar Ullah applied for post-arrest bail but their application was dismissed on merits vide detailed order recorded by this Court on 16-7-1998. Thereafter, another application was filed which was withdrawn on 4-3-1999 from this Court. All the three petitioners moved the trial Court as well as the Sessions Court for grant of bail on the ground that they were behind the bars for the last more than one year and as such, were entitled to bail on statutory ground in view of the provisions contained in 3rd proviso (a) of section 497, Cr.P.C. Their petition was dismissed by both the Courts below. Hence this petition.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that Noor Khan petitioner was arrested on 5- 4-1998, whereas, Nasarullah and Hameed Ullah were arrested on 6-4-1998 and since then, they are in continuous detention but their case has not so far been decided. In this regard, it is further contended that delay' in the trial cannot be attributed to the petitioners as the prosecution failed to submit challan in the Court from 4-5-1998 to 10-9-1998 and since then the petitioners are being summoned from jail but were not produced by the prosecution so that they could face the trial.
The trial was, therefor, being adjourned and delayed as the petitioners/accused were not produced by the prosecution before the trial Court.
3. The certified copies of the order-sheet have been placed on record to support the above contentions. The challan was submitted to the trial Court with sufficient delay by the prosecution and after submission of challan though the accused were being summoned for distribution of the necessary documents before commencement of trial but they have not been produced by the authority concerned. It is, thus, obvious that the delay in no way can be attributed to the petitioners/accused persons and their trial has not yet started although one year has passed since after their arrest. The delay rather can be gravely attributed to the prosecution which has failed to produce the accused from the jail. The learned trial Court should take serious view of these lapses instead of handling the case softly. The non-production of the accused persons before the trial Court in spite of repeated orders shows that the trial Court has not taken up the trial seriously and has not proceeded firmly against the delinquent officials, responsible for the non-production of the accused before it. It is, therefore, directed that the trial Court shall proceed firmly with the case and since the statutory right has accrued to the petitioners/accused, therefore, they are admitted to bail in the sum of Rs, 30,000 each with one surety each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court. The learned trial Magistrate is directed to proceed with the case expeditiously and to conclude the trial within six months under intimation to this Court. The petition is accordingly allowed.