1. ' The applicants are seeking bail for being involved in Crime No,89 of 1999 registered against them at Police Station Mirokhan under sections 302, 324, 427, 148, 149, P.P.C.
2. ' According to the contents of the F.I.R. Lodged on 30-10-1999 by complainant Ahmad Khan Luhar, the applicants along with two other accused persons, allegedly caused murders of Shaman alias Shah Murad and Major Luhur and inflicted injuries to Ghulam Sarwar, Qassim and Nazir. They are facing trial in Sessions Case No,403 of 1999. The bail has been urged on the ground of hardship caused due to delay in the commencement of trial.
3. ' Learned counsel appearing for the State after going through the case diary has stated that this is a case of hardship as the delay having been caused in the commencement of trial could not be attributed to the present applicants. He therefore, has candidly conceded to the grant of bail.
4. ' I have carefully considered the arguments and perused the case diaries and other relevant material.
5. ' The applicants were arrested on 30-10-1999 and are continuously in custody since then. The charge in the case was framed as far back as on 1-3-2000. It transpires ft= the case diary that on 28-11-2001 P.W. Dr. Abdul Sattar, P.Ws. Dilbar and Ghulam Sarwar were in attendance, but according to Mr. Soomro learned counsel appearing for the applicants, injured P.W. Ghulam Sarwar was given up by the prosecution and only Doctor Abdul Sattar and Mashir Dilbar were examined. He has drawn my attention towards case diary dated 12-2-2002 which shows that the P.Ws have refused to receive the process issued by the trial Court. Certified true copies of the applications dated 12-2- 2002 and 3-5-2002 have been filed which were moved before the learned trial Court on behalf of the accused/ applicants for issuance of N.B.Ws. Against the P.Ws. As according to the learned counsel for the applicant, they were intentionally avoiding to attend the Court for recording evidence. Understandably the idea is to protract the period of incarceration of the accused as undertrial prisoners.
6. ' Expeditious and fair trial is a fundamental right of an accused person. The intention of law is that a criminal case must be disposed of without unnecessary delay. It will not be difficult to comprehend that inordinate delay in imparting justice was likely to cause erosion of public confidence in the judicial system on one hand, and on the other hand, it was bound to create a sense of helplessness and despair and feelings of frustration and anguish apart from adding to their woes and miseries.
7. ' In Agha Nazarali v. Emperor AIR 1941 Sindh 186 Davis, C.J. And Weston, J. Observed "What the law contemplates is due diligence and impartiality in the prosecution of criminal cases. It is not the law that a criminal case should linger long".
8. ' In Emperor v. Muhammad Ibrahim and others AIR 1942 Calcutta 219 Derbyshire, C.J. And Bartley, J.
9. Observed "The policy of criminal law is to bring parsons accused to justice as speedily as possible so that if they are found guilty they may be punished and if they are found innocent they may be acquitted and discharged". Inter alia relying upon the above case-law this Court in The Crown v.
10. PIRU and another PLD 1955 Sind 227 quashed the proceedings of the criminal case on account of adjournments extending over a period of 2-1/2 years granted for procuring attendance of the co- accused from jail. Their lordships of the Honourable Supreme Court in Mian Manzoor Ahmad Wattoo v. State 2000 SCM R 107 were pleased to observe that "the object of criminal prosecution is not to punish an undertrial prisoner for the offence alleged against him. The object of criminal trial is that the accused is made to face the trial and answer the criminal charge against him".
11. ' Respectfully relying upon the case-law referred to hereinabove and looking to the hardship caused owing to inordinate delay in conclusion of the trial in the peculiar circumstances of the case in hand, I am of the view that this is a fit case in which the indulgence must be demonstrated.
12. Learned State Counsel has thus rightly conceded to the grant of bail keeping in view the hardship inflicted upon the applicants/accused. For the foregoing reasons, the applicants are directed to be released on bail on their furnishing surety in the sum of Rs,200,000 (Rupees two lacs) each and P.R.
13. Bond in the like amount, to the satisfaction of trial Court.