' The petitioner alongwith another is charged under section 302/34, P. P. C. For having committed the murder of one Suba during the night of 10 and 11 July 1975. He was arrested on 29-7-1975. Since then he is in jail. He along-with his co-accused had earlier filed Bail Application bearing No, 2602/B/ 76 which was dismissed on the ground that in view of extra-judicial confession by him and his co-accused, judicial confession by his co-accused implicating the petitioner as well and the recoveries effected from the petitioner, it could not be said that there were no reasonable grounds to believe that the then petitioner were guilty of an offence punishable with death or imprisonment for life or for ten years' rigorous imprisonment. This is vide order dated 19-8-76. The petitioners thereafter applied for bail before the learned Sessions Judge on the ground of delay but the application was rejected with an observation that the case was likely to be heard in May 1977. The petitioner has now filed this application for bail.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that there is no evidence warranting the conviction of the petitioner and, consequently, he should be allowed bail. It is, next, contended that the petitioner has been in Jail for nearly 27 months and according to the observation of the learned Sessions Judge the hearing is likely to be held in May 1977 i,e,, another eight months hence and this assumption is also not very definite. Learned counsel contends that it would be nearly three years or more that the petitioner would be put to trial and if the petitioner were to be then found innocent he would have remained in detention for such a long time without justification.
3. As regards the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner for grant of bail on merits, it has to be seen that such an application had already been rejected earlier and there is no justifiable reason to go over the same matter again. As regards the delay, it is no doubt that 27 months have already gone by and it will take quite sometime before the petitioner would be put to trial. It is also quite true that it is unjust to keep persons in detention without judging them for such a long time and when there is equal chance of their acquittal at the end. But nothing can be done as the law stands. Under section 497, Cr. P. C., a person accused of an offence punishable with death or imprisonment for life or ten years rigorous imprisonment cannot be released on bail unless there are no reasonable grounds to believe that he is guilty of such an offence. In view of the evidence collected by the prosecution mentioned in the previous judgment and referred to above, it cannot be said that there are no reasonable grounds to believe that the petitioner is guilty of the offence punishable with death or imprisonment for life or ten years rigorous imprisonment, The fact that delay comes about in holding of the trial is there on account of administrative and legislative acts. The learned Supreme Court of Pakistan in the case of Riasat All and others v. The State (Cr.
Appeal No, 119 of 1976) had observed that the State should do something about it and no one should be put to hardship. The same observation was reiterated in the case of Barkhurdar v. Liaqat All and 2 others (1).
' It is for the State to make necessary arrangements for avoiding undu hardships to the citizens. As far as the Court is concerned, it is bound be the law as it is and in view of the provisions of section 497, Cr. P. C. An the judgment of the learned Supreme Court in the case of Barkhurda mentioned above, on the ground of delay per se, persons accused of murde cannot be released on bail. This application is, therefore, dismissed. {{FOOT NOTE}}
(1) PLD 1977 SC 434 {{FOOT NOTE}}
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that a direction be issued to the learned Sessions Judge to expedite the trial and this case may be fixed for hearing on its number but given priority over those cases in which the accused persons are already on bail. The request of the learned counsel for the petitioner is genuine and the learned Sessions Judge may look into it and see if the long detention is cut short and the accused persons are put to trial, at an early date as far as possible.