2004 PLP 843 (YLR)

S.497

Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss.302/337/148/149

Offences Against Property (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance (VI of 1979), S.17(3)

Bail, grant of

Ground of hardship

Charge was not framed for more than two years

No progress in the case was made by the Trial Court despite the direction of High Court to examine at least the material witnesses within a period of three months

Case diaries had revealed that the prosecution witnesses despite being fully aware of the dates of hearing, were not attending the Court and the process was always being returned un-served

Accused, thus, was being deprived of his right of conclusion of trial without any unnecessary delay and it was a case of hardship

Accused was admitted to bail in circumstances. Muhammad Ayaz Soomro for Applicant. Muhammad Bachal Tonyo, Addl. A.-G. S. ALI ASLAM JAFRI, J.-- Applicant Muhammad Yousaf who is facing trial in Special Case No. 18 of 2000 (Crime No. 124 of 2000 of Police Station Kambar under sections 302, 337, 148, 149, P.P.C. and 17(3) of Offences Against Property (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979) has filed this bail application mainly on the ground of hardship due to delay in conclusion of his trial. Mr. Muhammad Ayaz Soomro, learned counsel for the applicant has argued that applicant was arrested on 18-7-2000 and charge was not framed for more than two years till 27-11-2002. He has further argued that a bail application was filed before this Court, which was disposed of on 29-5-2003 and a direction was given to the learned trial Court to examine at least the material witnesses within a period of three months, but there is no progress in the case at all. He has further pointed out that direction was also given to D.P.O., Larkana to ensure the attendance of the witnesses and submit monthly progress report to this Court, but that too has brought no result. Mr. Soomro has mainly urged that in fact the complainant side has been deliberately and intentionally avoiding to attend the Court and they are simply interested in seeing the applicant behind the bars for as much time as possible. He has referred to the case diaries' after the directions of this Court, which show that efforts are being taken by the learned trial Court, but the P.Ws. are not attending the Court and process is always being returned un-served. Learned counsel has drawn our attention to the fact that the P.Ws. are fully aware about the dates of hearing as the complainant has appointed an Advocate, who has filed his Vakalatnama on 12-6-2003 and has attended the Court on few dates, still the complainant and the witnesses are not attending the Court. Thus, according to the learned counsel it is a case of hardship and the accused stands deprived of conclusion of his trial without any unnecessary delay, though early disposal of a criminal trial is right of an accused. Mr. Muhammad Bachal Tonyo; learned Addl. A.-G. has not controverted this factual and legal aspect of the case that in case of hardship, bail can be granted in appropriate cases and he is also of the opinion that it is a fit case for exercise of discretion by this Court in favour of the accused. We are conscious of the fact that delay per se is not a ground for grant of bail and even in certain cases non compliance of the directions given by this Court cannot be considered to be a fresh ground for filing a bail application. However, in view of the discussion made above, we are of the considered view that the case in hand appears to be a case of hardship. Bail is, therefore, granted to the applicant in the sum of Rs. three hundred thousand and PR bond in the like amount, to the satisfaction of learned trial Court. N.H.Q./M-2/K Bail allowed.