1. ' The applicants have sought bail who are involved in Crime No,60 of 1996 registered with Police Station Valeed Larkana for an offences under sections 302, 324, 148 and 149, P.P.C.
2. ' Briefly the facts of the case are that on 2-8-1996, I alongwith father Ghulam Nabi alias Dodo, brother Manzoor, paternal uncle Muhammad Juman, relative Mashooque Ali left house outside for chitchatting when at 6-00 p.m. Near the garden of Aijaz Ali Abbasi, applicants/accused Nadir Ali and Aligohar, Abdul Jabbar, Ali Nawaz and Ali Hyder, all armed with mousers, out of them Ali Gohar abused the complainant party that they are not responding to the offers to have matrimonial terms hence they will not be spared. Saying so accused persons fired from their respective Mousers which hit father of complainant who fell down raising screams. Seeing the police party coming from Valeed Police Station, accused party started to escape the scene. Complainant party followed them and the accused also fired at Manzoor who fell down raising screams. Thereafter Manzoor was found dead due to receiving fire-arm injuries on his chest, back and left arm while Ghulam Nabi had sustained fire-arm shots at his chest, back, abdomen and was lying injured who was removed to C.M.C. Hospital where he lost his breath. Subsequently the F.I.R. Was registered to the above effect.
3. ' Apparently the bail plea moved on behalf of the applicants was declined by the trial Court giving rise to the present application.
4. ' I have heard learned counsel for the applicants and learned counsel for the State and perused the material brought on record. The learned counsel has mainly contended that this is a case of hardship and agony suffered by the applicants and the delay is not on the part of applicants nor on any other person acting on their behalf. Applicants were arrested on 16-3-1998 and since then they are continuously behind bars without trial. Initially the case was challaned before the Court of S.T.A. And then the learned Judge returned the case for submitting the challan before competent Court having jurisdiction and now the case is pending before the Court of 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Larkana where even the charge has not been framed. In support of the above submissions, he has relied upon the following case-laws:-- ' (1) 1998 PCr.LJ 948, (2) 1996 PCr.LJ 1818, (3) An unreported. Authority wherein a common order was passed in Criminal Bail Applications Nos.393 of 2002, 173 of 2003, 185 of 2002 and 117 of 2003 by a Single Bench of this Court at Larkana.
5. ' I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material brought on record.
6. Apparently the long delay in trial is very harsh which is not on the part of applicants or any person acting on their behalf. The trial was mistakenly conducted by learned S.T.A. Judge who at the later stage returned the same for retrial for want of jurisdiction which is pending before 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Larkana. It is pointed out that the charge has not yet been framed. It shows that the applicants are languishing in jail since 1998 without trial. In this regard, I am fortified by the view taken in the case of Ahrar Muhammad v. The State PLD 1974 SC 224, by a Full Bench of Supreme Court while looking into case of the applicant it was observed that inordinate delay in prosecution of the case amounted to abuse of due process of law and therefore, it could be a sufficient ground for granting of bail. The case had been dragging for five years and the accused had been denied bail. They further observed that even though, mere delay by itself was not sufficient ground but it was also to be observed that inordinate or unjustified delay in the prosecution of case did amount to an abuse of law. If the delay was so inordinate or so scandalous or so shocking then in principle it constituted sufficient ground for granting of bail.
7. ' In the circumstances, it is proved that this is a case of hardship and agony caused to the applicants. Accordingly bail is granted to the applicants in the sum of Rs,200,000 each and P.R.
8. Bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of trial Court.