1. ' Through this revision petition the order of District Court of Criminal Jurisdiction Mirpur, dated 10-9- 1999 is under challenge.
2. ' The brief facts forming the background of the present revision petition are that the accused- respondent is facing trial before Tehsil Court of Criminal Jurisdiction Mirpur for offences under sections 324/337A, 337-F(2), (5) 341, 147/148/149/109, A.P.C. Read with section 13/20/65, Arms Act.
3. Initially an application by the accused-respondents for concession of bail was moved before the trial Court but his request was turned down. Subsequently, he approached next higher forum but he met the same fate. Then he knocked at the door of this Court with a request to release him on bail but his request was no honoured by this Court. Resultantly, he filed an appeal before Hon'able Supreme Court from where he was also refused to be released on bail. However, the Hon'bie Supreme Court while recording its Order observed that he might renew his request for bail after the Court recorded statements of material witnesses.
4. ' After the observations of the apex Court, statements of some eye-witnesses were recorded and the accused-respondent once again submitted a bail application before the trial Court. His application was not allowed and feeling aggrieved by the order of the trial Court, he moved second bail application before District Court of Criminal Jurisdiction Mirpur. The said Court observed that the statements of injured witnesses were yet to be recorded as in the opinion of the said Court, the injured witnesses were the material witnesses, therefore, his application for bail could not be allowed. These observations of District Court of Criminal Jurisdiction was upheld by this Court and apex Court too.
5. ' After sometime when the statements of the injured witnesses were recorded, the accused- respondent moved for bail for the 3rd time and he succeeded in his attempt. The prosecution felt aggrieved by the order of the trial Court and filed a revision petition before District Court of Criminal Jurisdiction to, recall the order of the trial Court but they did not succeed as the said Court upheld the order of the trial Court. It was observed by both the Courts below that the trial of the case was being delayed by the prosecution unnecessarily. The accused-respondent remained under detention for a period more than one year. It was further observed by the Courts below that all the material witnesses had been recorded, therefore, it was in the interest of justice to release the accused-respondent on bail. Hence this revision petition to reverse the same.
6. ' The learned counsel for the complainant assisted by the Assistant Advocate-General (P.P.) argued that the accused-respondent was linked with the alleged offence of attempt to murder. He used fire-arm and on account of his firing Shah Nawaz sustained a grievous injury which resulted into damage to wrist tendons. It was further submitted that all the Courts including apex Court were of the opinion that the accused-respondent was prima facie, linked with the alleged offence and he was not entitled to concession of bail in the light of the facts of the case. No delay on the part of the prosecution was found and it was wrong to opine by the Courts below that the prosecution delayed the trial of the case. After the observations of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the statements of injured witnesses were recorded within reasonable time, therefore, it was not permissible under law to release the accused-respondent on the ground of delay.
7. ' On the other hand, it was argued by the learned counsel representing the accused-respondent that the fact of the matter was that trial was delayed by the prosecution unnecessarily. The respondent remained in Jail for a period more than one year and it was not fair to keep him behind bars when all the material prosecution witnesses had been recorded. The Courts below committed no illegality neither the ends of justice were defeated by the orders of the Courts below, the learned counsel submitted.
8. ' It is correct that the accused-respondent has not been released on bail on the merits of the case.
9. He is benefited for delay in the trial by the prosecution. The record shows that he was arrested in the instant case on 6-1-1998 and he remained under continuous detention till 16-4-1999. Therefore, the period of detention comes one year three months and 11 days till his release by the trial Court.
10. The time which could possibly be counted against him comes to three months and eight days as during this period the learned counsel representing him sought different adjournment and on account of submission of bail petition before this Court a period from 9-9-1998 to 11-11-1998 was consumed. By counting all this period against him, the period of detention, by all means was more than one year at the time of this release by the trial Court.
11. ' Though the accused-respondent sought his bail on merits of the case yet the Courts below without going into merits allowed him on bail on the ground of delay in the trial. Before the enactment of amended law pertaining to delay in the trial in shape of 3rd proviso to section 497, Cr.P.C. The Courts had been releasing the accused-persons on bail on the ground of unnecessary delay and the orders of the Courts below are found to have been recorded under the same powers.
12. However, there is no legal bar to treat the bail application submitted by the accused-respondent as the one moved on the ground of statutory delay. It is correct that no formal request has been made by the accused-respondent to release him on bail under the amended law pertaining to delay in the trial. However, this Court is competent to allow him bail when it comes into its notice that the period rfof continuous detention is more than one year and the trial is yet to be concluded.
13. 'A for a application on the ground of delay under the amended law is not necessary. This Court is vested with the powers to release an accused on bail under the amended law pertaining to delay in the trial without a formal request if it comes into its notice through an application or otherwise.
14. Therefore, as stated earlier, the period of continuous detention in this case is definitely more than one year and the trial is yet to be concluded.
15. ' With the above observations this Court declines to interfere with the orders of the Courts below and the revision petition is hereby dismissed by allowing the impugned order to stand.