1. ' The six applicants were arrested in this case on 28-7-1973 for having committed murder of Nisar and Asghar by giving them spear and hatchet blows on account of enmity over some woman. The police sent up the present accused while the complainant's party are also facing trial in the counter-case filed by accused Ghulam Nabi. A bail application was moved in this Court mainly on the ground of delay, being Bail Application No, 21/77. By that time the applicants had remained in jail for 3 years. The bail application was disposed of on 28-1-1977 and directions were issued to Sessions Judge, Sanghar (Mr. Shamsuddin Siddiqui) to proceed with the case without undue delay.
2. It was also ordered that if the matter remained undisposed of even for six months thereafter, the bail application could be repeated before this Court. The present bail application was then filed on 14-2-1978.
3. ' The copy of the case diary shows that although almost all the prosecution witnesses remained present on several hearings they were sent back and the case was adjourned by the learned Sessions Judge on grounds which were inadequate ; for instance, on 28-9-1977 all the accused, the prosecution witnesses, D. P. P. And the Defence Advocate were present but the case was put off from 28-9-1977 to 26-11-1977 just because the Advocate for the complainant had filed an adjournment application. The learned Sessions Judge is presumed to have known that the Advocate for the complainant has no locus standi in a murder case sent up by the police. There was, therefore, no necessity for such an adjournment nor is it clear why on that ground the case was put off for a period of two months. Again on 26-11-1977 the learned Sessions Judge just read out the charge and then adjourned the proceedings although the prosecution witnesses were present. Mr. Allandino G. Memon has assured this Court that his partner Mr. Jabbir had not moved for any adjournment as he was a Senior Advocate himself.
4. ' Again on 11-1-1978 the accused, the D. P. P., the Defence Advocate and the witnesses were present but the case was put off to 20-2-1978 because the complainant had moved for adjournment. The position of a complainant is that of a prosecution witness. It is not understood why the case was adjourned to please the complainant in spite of the directions to dispose of the case expeditiously.
5. ' Thus from the date of the last order, i,e, 28-1-1977 till the hearing of this application within a period of about 13 months, the learned Sessions Judge has only examined one corpse bearer. It is thus evident that the express directions from the High Court were completely disregarded by the learned Sessions Judge, Sanghar and little progress was made in the case.
6. ' In the counter-case only the charge has been read out and the recording of evidence has not even commenced. If this is the way the cases are handled by the learned Sessions Judge, Sanghar, these two cases are likely to take at least a couple of years more to be completed.
7. The applicants who are members of one family, have thus remained behind the bars for about 41 years by this time, just waiting for their trial. The delay in this case is without any justification and it amounts to abuse of the process of Court.
8. ' Mr. Usman Ghani, Additional Advocate-General frankly states that he has no objection if bail is granted to the applicants in view of the inordinate delay which has resulted because the Court sent away the prosecution witnesses each time and adjourned the hearings in spite of the orders on the last bail application which were communicated to the Court.
9. ' Bail is accordingly granted to all the six applicants in the sum of Rs, 25,000 with P. R. And one surety each to the satisfaction of Sessions Judge, Sanghar.
10. ' The Sessions Judge, Sanghar may be directed to forward to this Court a report showing the number of witnesses examined by him or the matters heard and disposed of by him on 9-8-1977, 28-9-19./7, 26-11-1977 and 11-1-1978.
11. Ball granted.