1987 PLP 2962 (MLD)

Ch. Muhammad Anwar Bhinder for Petitioner. Ch. Muhammad Yameen for the Complainant. Shaukat Hussain for the State. The petitioner, Riaz Ahmad, has moved this petition for bail after arrest under section 497/498, Cr P C in a case registered against him and others under section 302/148/149, P P C at Police Station Narang, District Sheikhupura vide F.I.R. No.44 dated 31-3-1985.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has forcefully argued that the occurrence in hand took place on 31-3-1985 and despite the expiry of more than two years the trial of the petitioner has not commenced and as such placing reliance on section 497, Cr.P.C. he maintained that the petitioner is entitled to be released on bail. The :earned counsel relied upon the rule laid down in Saleh Muhammad Vs. The State (1983 S C M R 341), Akbar alias Ghulam Akbar v. The State (1984 P Cr L J 3163), Rahim Bux Vs. The State (P L D 1986 Kar.224), Wazir and another Vs. The State (P L D 1986 Kar.646), Muhammad Akram and another Vs. The State (1986 P Cr L J 2177), Nazar Muhammad and two others Vs. The Sate (1987 P Cr L J 1754), and Abdul Haleem Vs. The State (P L D 1986 Pesh 92).

3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the complainant has opposed the grant of bail to the petitioner. He has stated that the petitioner is a desperate and hardened criminal and as such is not entitled to be released on bail. He has relied upon Muhammad Hanif Vs. The State (P L D 1986 Kar.437) and Gul Khan and others. Vs. The State (P L D 1986 Kar.629). Learned counsel further stated that 14-9-1987 is fixed by Court for recording the evidence.

4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties at considerable length. Both the learned counsel for the parties have agreed that more than two years have passed in the case and so far the trial has not been concluded. However, learned counsel for the petitioner has stressed that in view of the provisions contained in section 497, Cr.P.C. as well as the law referred to above, the petitioner has earned his right to be released on bail. This proposition has been contested seriously by the learned counsel ring on behalf of the complainant. He has maintained that the petitioner is desperate and hardened criminal, therefore, cannot be given the concession of bail.

5. Without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, I am of the view that the case was registered against the petitioner and others on 31-3-1985 and admittedly so far the trial has not been concluded. There is nothing on the record to show that the petitioner is a hardened and desperate criminal. Learned counsel for the complainant has drawn my attention to the contents of the F.I.R. However, the fact remains that the petitioner is not a previous convict. Further the learned counsel for the petitioner has urged that the contents in the F.I.R. are mere allegations, at the moment, against the petitioner. After recording the evidence by the learned trial" Court, truth, one way or the other will come out.

6. The upshot of the above discussion is that respectfully following the rule laid down in the aforementioned authorities produced and relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner, I admit the petitioner to bail in the sum of Rs:1,00,000 (Rupees one lac) with two sureties, each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court.

7. The trial Court is directed to conclude the, trial of the petitioner and others within one month positively and compliance report shall be submitted to the Registrar of this Court. S.A./R-49/L Bail granted.