1. ' SH. RIAZ AHMED, J.---The petitioner is aggrieved by the dismissal of his application seeking bail and, therefore seeks leave to appeal against the order impugned.
2. The facts of the case in brief are that vide F.I.R. No.14 dated 14-4-1995 a case was registered against the petitioner and others under Article 3/4 of the Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order, 1979 read with section 9 of the Narcotic Substances Control Ordinance, 1995 by the Police Station Pakistan Narcotics Control Board (PNCB), Lahore.
3. The prosecution case as given in the F.I.R. based upon the statement of Ikramullah Bandial, F.I.O. is that Col. Muhammad Younas, Deputy Director, PNCB received an information that the petitioner Munawar Hussain Manj was indulging in inter-District and inter-Province drug smuggling and that he would be transporting huge quantity of heroin to his Dera in Sheikhupura in a Suzuki car.
4. Pursuant to the said order of the Deputy Director, a raiding party consisting of the officials of the PNCB was constituted. The said raiding party installed a picket at Lahore-Sheikhupura Road. At about 12-00 noon, a Suzuki car with an M.N.A. plate mounted on it in which a Police Constable in uniform armed with G.3 rifle was sitting, emerged on the scene. A signal was given to the driver to stop, but instead of halting the car, driver accelerated the speed and the Constable sitting therein resorted to firing at the raiding party. After breaking the barrier, the car turned on the Sheildmpura Road, Col. Muhammad Younas, Deputy Director, who was heading the raiding party, chased the said car and in that effort his vehicle collided with the Suzuki car. The driver of the Suzuki car Muhammad Siddique and the Constable, namely Abdul Sattar gunman were found to be business associates of the petitioner. On search 35 kg. of heroin and 30 kg. of Charas wrapped in bags were recovered from the said Suzuki car alongwith G.3 rifle, 175 live bullets, 222 rifle and 65 live cartridges.
5. On interrogation both the accused disclosed that the contraband material recovered from the car belonged to the petitioner and was being transported to Sheikhupura at the behest of the petitioner.
6. On 17-8-1985, the petitioner's bail application was dismissed by the High Court. Another bail application was moved seeking bail on health grounds and vide order dated 14-12-1995 the petitioner was allowed interim bail, but the said application was dismissed on 22-5-1997 because it had become infructuous on account of the fact that the petitioner was detained under section 16 of the Maintenance of Public Order Ordinance. A third application for the grant of bail was moved on the statutory ground and the same was opposed by the authorities of the PNCB and it was argued that the petitioner was partly responsible for delay in conclusion of the trial and thus this application was also dismissed. An undertaking was given on behalf of the prosecution that only 3 witnesses were to be examined and the trial would be concluded very soon and, thus, the application was dismissed. The petitioner then invoked the jurisdiction of this Court and on 14-4- 1999 the following order was passed:--- "The learned Advocate-General, Punjab, Mr. Ashtar Ausaf Ali and Mr. S.D. Qureshi have informed the Court that the matter is likely to be finalized within two weeks. We are not inclined to grant of bail at this stage. In case the trial Court does not dispose of the case within two weeks from 19-4-1999 for the reason that the learned trial Judge is on leave on account of death of his mother, without any fault of the petitioner, the petitioner may repeat the bail application in this,Court."
7. ' Despite the orders of this Court the trial was not concluded and, thus, the petitioner now again has invoked the jurisdiction of this Court.
5. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the State at length and we have noticed that the petitioner is behind the bars for the last 2 years 7 months and the case was not decided within two weeks from 19-4-1999 as undertaken by the prosecution. In addition thereto, the petitioner was examined by a Board of Doctors constituted by the Medical Superintendent, Mayo Hospital, Lahore and it was categorically stated by the Doctors that the petitioner was suffering from ischaemiac heart disease and asthma and the petitioner had also stone in his kidney. As far as merits of the 'case are concerned, prima facie, the petitioner is guilty of the abetment of the commission of the offence. We have also noticed that prosecution is not concluding the trial and now it is stated that only one witness has to be examined. In this view of the matter, we are of the view that the petitioner is entitled to the concession of the grant of bail on statutory ground as well.
8. Therefore, we convert this petition into appeal and allow it. The petitioner is admitted to bail provided he furnishes bail bond in the sum of Rs.10,00,000 (one million rupees) with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court.
9. ' These are the reasons for our short order dated 27-12-1999 under which the petitioner was released on bail.