1. ' Present applicant is seeking bail in Crime No,16 of 1998 registered with Police Station Gaji Khudawar under section 302/34, P.P.C. Learned counsel for the applicant has drawn my attention on the order, dated 20-11-2000 passed by this Court wherein the trial Court was directed to record the evidence of the complainant and the eyewitnesses within the period of four months and to conclude the case within the period of six months. The learned counsel for the applicant has drawn my attention on the case diaries after the directions of this Court, dated 20-11-2000 at page 67 wherein no adjournment has been sought by the defence and the case is being adjourned for want of production of accused or for want of evidence, which has not been controverted by the learned counsel for the State. Mr. Ali Nawaz Ghanghro has placed his reliance on a case Muhammad Aslam v. The State, reported in 1999 SCM R 2147, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has granted bail in a murder case to the accused. In view of the fact that there was no any explanation for non-compliance of the order of High Court and petition for leave to appeal was converted into appeal which was allowed and the accused was admitted to bail in the circumstances.
2. ' On the other hand, Mr. Gul Hassan Solangi, Advocate for the State, in view of the authority reported in 1999 SCM R 2147, has recorded no objection to the grant of bail.
3. ' I have considered the arguments rendered by the Advocates for the parties and have gone through the order of this Court, dated 20-11-2000 and thereafter the diary after the directions issued by this Court. Admittedly, the directions were given by this Court to the trial Court to conclude the trial within the period of four months from the date of the receipt of the order and yet the directions given by this Court have not been followed by the trial Court and the reasons have been assigned by the trial Court while dismissing the bail application of the applicant that the process issued to the witnesses were not served and, therefore, the trial could not be concluded.
4. The order itself lacks the reasons as to why the trial Court could not procure the attendance of the witnesses to conclude the trial in the wake of directions given by this Court. What efforts were made by the trial Court are the lacking in the impugned order. I am of the considered opinion that the directions given by this Court have not been followed by the trial Court in letter and spirit. I am being fortified by the case law reported in 1999 SCM R 2147 and accordingly present applicants are granted bail in the sum of Rs,100,000 each and P.R. Bond in the like amount, to the satisfaction of the trial Court.