Petitioner seeks his post arrest bail in case F.I.R. No, 345, dated 15.10.1996, under Sections 148/302/149 read with Section 109 P.P.C. registered with Police Station Sadiqabad, Rawalpindi at the behest of one Israr-ul-Haq.
2. All relevant facts and circumstances regarding case, in hand have been furnished in order dated 4.9.2002 passed by my learned brother Bashir A. Mujahid, J., passed in Crl. Misc. No, 774/B of 2002, so the same do not require to be reiterated here once again. While disposing of the said bail petition, it was observed therein that no person can be kept in judicial lock up for an indefinite period and a zippy and finicky direction was issued to the trial Court to conclude trial of the accused within six months, but the fact remains that trial has not been concluded so far.
3. Faced with this situation, petitioner preferred his bail application before the learned Sessions Judge, Rawalpindi, who made over the same to a learned Additional Sessions Judge for its disposal in accordance with law. The said learned Judge after taking everything into his consideration dismissed his application by virtue of his order dated 5.4.2003, with the observation that no bail can be granted on the basis of statutory ground because this relevant provision has been deleted from the Statute. It seems that he was not aware of the fact that the bail was being sought on the ground that specific direction issued by this Court had been violated, giving rise to a fresh ground in favour of the petitioner.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner after highlighting broad features and overall picture of the case, submits that direction was issued to the trial Court by this Court on 6.9.2002 and till today no progress has been made towards conclusion of the trial. Adds that this constitutes a flagrant violation of the specific direction of this Court, which constitutes a sufficient ground for his enlargement on bail. In this regard he places reliance on two cases, Shouki alias Shoukat and another u. The State and another (1984 S.C.M.R. 613) and Muhammad Sadiq and 2 others u. State (P.L.J. 1996 Cr.C.(Lahore) 1713). In the first one, it was held that counsel representing accused was busy with other professional work and was unable to attend trial of the accused will not ipso facto be construed justification for delaying trial--Acts and omissions of other persons acting on behalf of the accused held also embraced by law, and in the latter one, it was held that adjournment sought by the defence counsel representing accused on account of his professional engagements cannot make a ground to deny bail to him. on statutory ground. Learned counsel further submits that the petitioner is behind the bars for the last about sixteen months and end of trial is not in sight in the near future, and further there is no likelihood of his jumping the bail in any manner. He may be allowed bail.
5. Learned counsel for the State was not in a position to controvert the ground realities and submits that although a case for bail is made out, but being a State counsel he will oppose it. When asked to furnish grounds on which he resists this petition, he failed to do so.
6. I have consciously heard and soberly considered respective arguments of learned counsel for both the sides.
7. I am of the firm view that whenever a specific direction is issued by a superior Court, it must be acted upon or some efforts towards achieving that object must appear to have been made. In the instant case, the learned trial Judge did not adopt coercive measures at all for faithful compliance of the same. The criminal law is ideally specific in nature, uniform in application, dispassionate in enforcement and reflective of informal social norms. By means of criminal law, we can achieve social control over the behaviour of members of society: It allows or prohibits behaviour, for particular individuals in specific situations. Thus, the trial Court was by all means competent to deploy the whole power vested in him under specific provisions of law. The petitioner was arrested on 8.1.2002 and despite ideally specific direction to the trial Court, trial has not been concluded so far, which in my opinion constitutes a sufficient ground for his enlargement on bail.
8. A report was called from the trial Court with regard to the latest position of the trial, which has been received. It reveals from perusal thereof that the charge was framed on 25.9.2002 and statement of only. one prosecution witness could be recorded so far. I am satisfied that trial is likely to consume a pretty long time and the accused person cannot be kept interminably in jail on the whim or caprice of the prosecution.
9. Accordingly, by accepting this petition, I order release of the petitioner on bail subject to his furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs, 5,00,000/- (Rupees five lacs) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of trial Court. If the petitioner is in possession of a valid passport, that shall be deposited with the trial Court, for which a receipt shall be issued to him and the same will be returned to him after conclusion of trial.