1. ' FAIZ MUHAMMAD QURESHI, J.---The present applicant is seeking bail in Crime No,26/1999 registered with Police Station Nasirabad under sections 6/9, Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997.
2. ' The present applicant has sought bail applciation on merits before the trial Court, but without success, hence subsequently moved this bail application before this Court whereby the trial Court by order, dated 19-10-1999 was directed to record the evidence of at least complainant within a period of thirty days and then the present applicant was at liberty to repeal the bail application.
3. Order of this Court has been annexed with the present bail application, dated 19th October, 1999.
4. The case diary of Case No,9/1999 has also been filed by the learned counsel for the applicant.
5. ' Learned counsel for the applicant has moved the bail application on the ground of statutory delay and has contended that the present application was arrested on 23-2-1999 and since then no progress has been made by the trial Court and there is no fault at the door of the present application in causing delay towards the trial. Mr. Nisar Ahmed Abro has further contended that despiet of directions given by this Court on 19-10-1999, the trial Court has not followed the directions of this Court and according to case diary, the trial Court failed to procure the attendance of the complainant and other witnesses in the case and Mr. Nisar Ahmed has laid much stress that the present applicant is entitled for the concession of bail on the ground of statutory delay and has placed reliance on 1999 SCM R 2147 wherein Honourable Supreme Court has granted bail in murder case to the accused in view of the fact that the directions were not followed by the trial Court of the High Court and there is no explanation with regard to the noncompliance of this Court order.
6. ' We have examined the material available on the record and case diaries. We have also examined the law cited by Mr. Nisar Ahmed Abro learned counsel for the applicant.
7. ' Admittedly the directions were given by this Court to the trial Court to examine at least complainant within thirty days from the date of the order, but according to the case diary, no efforts have been taken by the trial Court to procure the attendance of the complainant and no reasons have been assigned by the trial Court while dismissing the bail application on the ground of delay with regard to the non-compliance of the directions of this Court.
8. ' Learned counsel for the State Mr. Mushtaq Ahmed Kourejo has frankly recorded his no objection to the grant of bail to the applicant on the ground of statutory delay and has contended that the directions haye not been followed by the trial Court and no reasons have been assigned with regard to the non-compliance of the directions.
9. ' Before parting this order, it is regretted to observe that the trial Court has not assigned the reasons of non-compliance of the directions of this Court while dismissing the bail application of the present applicant on the ground of statutory delay, particularly in the light of directions of this Court trial Court ought to have assigned the reasons of noncompliance of the directions of this Court.
10. 'In view of no objection given by the learned counsel for the State and noncompliance of the directions given by this Court, we are being fortified by law by case Muhammad Aslam v. State reported in 1999 SCM R 2147 and accordingly, the present applicant is granted bail on furnishing security in the sum of Rs, One hundred thousand and PR bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of trial Court.