2003 P Cr (PLP)

(b) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)‑‑‑-- ‑‑‑‑S. 497‑‑‑Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss.302/459/460/337‑H(ii)/34‑‑ Bail‑‑‑Despite direction of High Court issued about two years back trial had not yet commenced‑‑‑Since the charge could not be framed within the last 18 months, period required for conclusion of the trial was not difficult to be predicted‑‑‑Fair and expeditious trial was the fundamental right of the accused which could not be denied‑‑‑Hardship suffered by the accused an account of delay was quite obvious and the same could not be overlooked‑‑‑Bail was allowed to accused in circumstances. Manzoor Ahmed Wattoo v. The State 2000 SCMR 107 ref. Ubadullah M. Abro for Applicant. Muhammad Ismail Bhutto for the State. The applicants are seeking bail in Crime No. 15 of 1998 Police Station Rustam under sections 302, 459, 460, 337‑H(ii) and 34, P. P. C. According to the allegations levelled in the F.I.R. lodged by complainant Irshad Ahmed on 22‑4‑1998, the applicant/accused committed the murder of deceased Muhammad Ilyas, and was facing trial before the learned Vth Additional Sessions Judge, Shikarpur in Sessions Case No.271 of 1998. The bail application is being pressed on the ground of hardship having been caused on account of inordinate delay in the conclusion of trial. I have heard the learned counsel for the applicant and the State and perused the record. It is argued that the bail application of the applicants was dismissed on merits vide order dated 11‑12‑2000, however, the directions were given to the learned trial Court for bifurcating the case of the present applicant and other accused persons and to conclude the trial preferably within a period of three months. Learned counsel has filed the case diaries which show that no progress has been made in the trial so far. Vide order, dated 24‑4‑2002 the comments were called from learned trial Court with regard to the reasons for delay in conclusion of trial. Learned Vth Additional Sessions Judge, Shikarpur has submitted the comments on 2‑5‑2002. The perusal of comments reveals that though the case of present applicant had been bifurcated but could not proceed because the applicant was not ,produced before the Court by the Jail Authorities on one pretext or the other in spite of repeated letters and production orders issued by the Court. It transpires from the perusal of the case diary that even charge has not been framed as yet. Fair and A expeditious trial is fundamental right of an accused person, which could not be denied. It was observed by their Lordships of the Honourable Supreme Court in Manzoor Ahmed Wattoo v. The State 2000 SCMR 107 that "the object of criminal prosecution is not to punish a under trial prisoner for the offence alleged against him. The object of criminal trial is that the accused is made to face the trial and answer the criminal charge against him". In this particular case despite directions having been issued by this Court as far back as in the year 2000 the trial has yet not commenced. Since the charge could not be framed after the expiry of 18 months, how long will it take to conclude the trial, is not difficult to predict. Hardship suffered by the accused/applicant is quite obvious which could not be overlooked. Learned State Counsel has, therefore, rightly conceded to the grant of bail to the applicant. Accordingly, the applicant is directed to be released on bail on his furnishing surety, in the sum of Rs.2,00,000 (Rupees two lacs) and P.R. Bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of trial Court. N.H.Q./B‑61/K Bail allowed.