' Naveed Baig petitioner through the instant petition seeks post-arrest bail in case F.I.R. No,14 of 1991, dated 13-1-1991, under sections 302/201/34, P.P.C. Registered with Police Station, New Multan.
2. Briefly the prosecution case is that on 10-1-1991 at about 5-00 p.m. He and his co-accused had abducted Muhammad Ahsan-ud-Din, the son of the complainant for ransom and thereafter they had murdered him.
3_ He and his co-accused were convicted by the learned Special Court, constituted under the Suppression of Terrorist Activities Act, 1975, Multan in offence under section 365-A, P.P.C. Vide the judgment, dated 5-10-1991. He preferred an appeal against the same, which was dismissed as having gone infructuous on 4-2-2003 by the Division Bench of this Court of which I was the Member.
4. It has been contended on his behalf that on the same facts he was tried in the offence under section 365-A, P.P.C. And he was convicted in the same and sentenced to imprisonment for life and he has served out his entire said sentence; that the said learned trial Court in its judgment has mentioned that he may be separately tried under sections 302/201/34, P.P.C. For the murder of the said deceased boy; that there is no direct evidence of murder of the deceased against him; that the evidence against him of last seen and extra-judicial confession is of very weak type; that in fact he has suffered about 13 years detention as undertrial in this case in offence under sections 302/201/34, P.P.C. His trial as yet in the same has not been concluded; and that this great delay in conclusion of his trial in these offences i,e, under sections 302/201/34, P.P.C. Entitles him to the concession of bail.
5. On the other hand, the learned State Counsel assisted by the learned counsel for the complainant had opposed the petition on the ground that he alongwith his co-accused on the same fact was tried under section 365-A/34, P.P.C. And he was found guilty therein and so he is sufficiently connected with the murder of the deceased as well; and that the delay in trial under sections 302/201/34, P.P.C. Was due to his own act as he had preferred an appeal against his conviction and sentence under section 365-A, P.P.C. He also challenged the holding of his second trial on the same facts under sections 302/201/34, P.P.C. To be illegal.
6. I have carefully considered the submissions made from both sides with the help of available record.
7. As said above that he alongwith his co-accused was tried under section 365-A, P.P.C. In the instant case by the learned Special Court, constituted under Suppression of Terrorist Activities, 1975 and sentenced to imprisonment for life. The said Court in its' judgment of his conviction and sentence has observed that the separate challan against him in offence under sections 302/201/34, P.P.C. May be submitted before competent Court and in consequence of the same he is presently facing trial in the instant case in the challan submitted against him under sections 302/201/34, P.P.C. He statedly in the instant case was arrested on 25-3-1991 and since then has continuously been detained. Thus, his period of detention as undertrial prisoner in offence under sections 302/ 201/34, P.P.C. Is about 13 years. I thus, find that due to his, this long detention spreading over about 13 years in the instant case in offence under sections 302/201/34, P.P.0 and the conclusion of his trial in the near future being not in sight, he is entitled to the relief of bail. I, therefore, accept this petition and admit him to bail provided he furnishes bail Bonds in the sum of Rs,2,00,000 (Rupees two lac) each with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court.
8. However, in the abovesaid peculiar circumstances of the case, I am also inclined to issue 4lirection to the learned trial Court for expeditious disposal of his case but preferably within a period of four months from the date of receipt of this order to it under intimation to the Deputy Registrar (Judicial) of this Court.