' This is an application for cancellation of to respondent No,1 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sheikhupura on the statutory ground that two years had lapsed but the case could not be concluded.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the delay in the conclusion of trial of the case of the respondent has not occasioned due to any fault on the part of the prosecution because respondent has been getting adjournments on the ground to engage a counsel to defend him.
Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the same learned Additional Sessions Judge, on 10-7-1999 refused the bail to co-accused of the respondent namely, Muhammad Aslam and passed a detailed order on 10-7-1999 while respondent was allowed bail on 5-7-1999. Learned counsel submits that case of the respondent is also covered by the fourth proviso of section 497(1) because respondent alongwith his co-accused while armed with fire-arms criminally trespassed into the house of first informant/complainant and then took him with him forcibly to the house of his brother from where they took a Dek and also caused fire-arm injuries on the person of Muhammad Ilyas brother of the complainant who died later on. Learned counsel submits that act of the present respondent was of a desperate nature and falls within the category of hardened criminal and he was not entitled to any such concession. Learned counsel lastly, submits that two contradictory judgments have been passed by the learned Sessions Judge, one while granting bail to the respondent and the other while dismissing bail application of his co-accused Muhammad Aslam.
3. On the other hand learned counsel for the respondent submits that respondent was allowed bail on the statutory ground and the order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge in this regard is legal one and is fully defendable. He further submits that there is no fault on his part in the conclusion of the trial.
4. Learned counsel for the State, on the other hand, submits that respondent had been getting adjournments on one pretext or the other in order to engage counsel for defending him before the trial Court and he supports the cancellation of his bail.
5. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and also the respondents and State. In January, 1999 on two occasions respondent had got adjournments in order to engage a counsel.
Later on at some occasions when the witnesses were present then he also got adjournments in order to engage a counsel. A bare perusal of the case would show that respondent alongwith his co-accused while armed with fire-arms criminally trespassed into the house of the complainant in the mid of the night in order to commit dacoity and thereafter, the complainant was forced and he was taken to the house of Muhammad Ilyas his real brother where they also stole some articles and also caused death of Muhammad Ilyas. The act of the respondent and his co-accused falls within the category of fourth proviso of section 497(1), Cr.P.C. Two contradictory orders have been passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, one while granting bail to the respondent and the other dismissing the bail application of his co-accused Muhammad Aslam, on 10-7-1999. In this view of the matter, this petition is accepted; bail already granted to the respondent Muhammad Ayub is hereby cancelled. He is in police custody. He shall be sent to judicial lock.
6. Learned trial Court is directed to appoint a State Counsel if the respondent has not engaged his counsel and to start the trial of the case with utmost expediency. Disposed of.