' Heard. The petitioner was on bail in a 307 case since 1973. It is stated that there are several accused in this case and they belong to different parts of Punjab. The trial had taken about four years without any substantial progress when on 17-1-77, it is noted in the order sheet, copy of which has been produced by the learned counsel for the petitioner for perusal of the Court, two accused namely, Muhammad Din and Tariq, were absent "as usual". The learned Magistrate observed that the absentees should be summoned for 16-2-77 "as usual". It was then noted that Ghalib accused (the present petitioner) had also absented on that date without sending any information with regard to his inability to attend. While the other accused were simply summoned for 16-2-77, the learned Magistrate ordered cancellation of bail of the petitioner and directed issuance of non- bailable warrants against him. In all probability, this distinction scared away the petitioner and he, then, did not appear for about ten months. As a consequence thereof, the learned Magistrate, vide his order dated 20.11-77, thought it fit to reject a fresh application for bail presented on behalf of the petitioner; mainly, on the ground that he remained absent for ten months. The learned Magistrate, however, observed that the then "stage" was not proper for release of the petitioner on bail. The learned Sessions Judge, it appears, was not conscious of the aforenoted facts when he refused bail to the petitioner, by order dated 19-12-77. He also was not aware that (Zakiuddin Pal, J) on merits the petitioner had been released on bail by the learned Magistrate in 1973.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that there is no desire on the part of the petitioner to avoid due prosecution in accordance with law. Two witnesses who were examined did not depose against him, and that he is ready and willing to face the trial. Accordinz, to the instructions received by the learned counsel from the father of the petitioner, it has been suggested that the petitioner being a young fellow, got fed up due to the delay in the trial and it is possible that he got scared on account of the order passed on 17-1-77, wherein a distinction was created between his absence and the absen:e of two other accused. When questioned as to how the father of the petitioner is now certain that, if released on bail, he will not again run away (as stated being fed up with the trial), learned counsel has replied that the petitioner would furnish two instead of one surety and that further care can be taken by increasing the amount of the surety.
3. The petitioner was released on bail in so far as the merits are concerned, five years earlier. His solitary absence having been noted, the petitioner, in effect, has already been punished in this behalf more than his due. Keeping in view all the circumstances of the case, I allow this petition.
The petitioner shall be released on bail, pending the decision of the trial, on his furnishing bail bond in the sum of Rs, 10,000 with two sureties in the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned trial Magistrate. The sureties shall be jointly and severally responsible for the entire amount.
4. It appears that the learned Magistrate is handicapped in so far as the progress of the case is concerned, on account of bona fide or otherwise, absence of one or the other accused. As explained by the learned counsel, it is due to the fact that they belong to different parts of the Province. If, at any stage, the learned Magistrate decides to take any action against the accused in this behalf, it should be a uniform action, without taking any discriminatory measure. The learned Magistrate should also make use of the provisions contained in section 540-A, Cr. P. C. In case it has become impossible for him otherwise to achieve progress in C., case, on account of absence of one or the other accused.
5. Copy dasti on payment of usual charges.