1997 PCr (PLP)

Mian Arshad Latif for Petitioners. Abdul Hameed Khokhar for the State The complainant Muhammad Zarif alongwith his wife's brother Iftikhar Ahmad deceased went to the house of Muhammad Ramzan one of the co-accused with the petitioners on 23-9-1994 at about evening time in the area of Kachi Mandi, Liaquatpur, Police Station, City Vehari.

2. The brief facts are that Mst. Mumtaz Mai, daughter of aforesaid Muhammad Ramzan was married with the deceased 17/18 years back and had come to her father's house after picking up a row with her husband i.e. deceased about a month back prior to the occurrence. The deceased had gone to the house of accused persons in order to bring back his wife Mst. Mumtaz Mai. However, during the course of negotiations hot words were exchanged between the parties whereupon both the petitioners gave Sota blows on the head and legs of, the deceased, which proved fatal.

3. The bail is prayed on the ground that there is a delay of 3 days in filing the F.I.R., that no incriminating article was recovered from the petitioners, and that the prosecution story was highly improbable and was cooked up due to enmity. It was also emphasized that the petitioners were entitled to bail on statutory, ground in view of the provisions contained in section .497(1)(b), Cr.P.C. as-two years have elapsed and the trial has not yet concluded.

4. The learned counsel for the State opposed the bail application on the ground that deeper appreciation of the merits of the case cannot be undertaken at this stage. It was further contended that the delay in disposal of the case occurred because of the unfortunate death of the Presiding Officer whose successor in office has not yet been appointed.

5. I have considered the above submissions and find that the deeper appreciation about the merits of the case cannot be made lest it may prejudice the case of any of the parties. The delay in the disposal of the case has occurred because the then learned Presiding Officer unfortunately expired as would be clear from the order dated 25-1-1996 and since then no successor has been appointed in his place. This fact is clear from the order sheet produced by the learned counsel for the petitioners. ,

6. In view of the above facts and since the petitioners are the principal accused according to the prosecution case, therefore, instead of releasing them on bail on statutory ground it would be just and fair if a time limit is prescribed for the disposal of the case on its merits keeping in view the peculiar circumstance which caused the delay in disposal of the case.

7. In view of my above discussion the petition is dismissed with the direction that the learned Sessions Judge, Vehari shall try' the case himself or make it over to one of the Additional Sessions' Judges in the District to try the same and conclude the trial within three months failing which the petitioners may renew their request for bail. N.H.Q./A-92/L Bail refused.