2013 PLP 1670 (YLR)

ABDUL SAMI KHAN, J.

Through this petition under section 497, Cr.P.C. Hafiz Faqeer Hussain petitioner has sought bail after arrest in case F.I.R. No.823/2005, dated 29-11-2005 registered at Police Station Hanjarwal, Lahore in respect of an offence under section 302, P.P.C. read with sections 148 and 149, P.P.C.

2. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner has been roped in this case by the complainant with mala fide intention and ulterior motives after joining hands with the local police. The petitioner is not named in the F.I.R. and he is involved in this case through supplementary statement got recorded by the complainant on 2-12-2005 in which no source of information has been mentioned by the complainant as to how he came to know about the name of the petitioner. There is a delay of one day in registration of F.I.R. and the same has not been explained which clearly shows that F.I.R. has been got recorded by the complainant after due deliberations and consultations. No identification parade has been conducted in this case which is a mandatory provision. Three co-accused of the petitioner namely Ghulam Murtaza, Kamran and Naseer have already been allowed bail. The petitioner is previous non-convict, never involved in such like cases, he was arrested on 7-12-2005, investigation is complete, challan has been sent to the learned trial Court in the year 2006 but so far trial has not seen any substantial progress so possibility of conclusion of trial in near future is no more in sight. Continuous incarceration of the petitioner would not serve any beneficial purpose especially in the circumstances when the petitioner has already earned statutory right of bail due to delay in conclusion of his trial.

3. On the other hand the learned Deputy Prosecutor-General after going through the record submits that the complainant has absolutely no malice to falsely involve the petitioner in this case. The petitioner has been named by the complainant in supplementary statement as main accused and this fact came on record as a result of investigation because the Investigating Officer came to the conclusion that the petitioner had inflicted two firearms injuries to the deceased. The weapon of offence has already been recovered from the petitioner. During the investigation the petitioner has been found guilty of the offence. The offence with which the petitioner is charged falls within the prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C.

4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record with their able assistance. It has been noticed that the petitioner is not nominated in the F.I.R. which has been registered with the delay of one day without any explanation. The name of the petitioner has been introduced in this case through a supplementary statement but that too without disclosure of source as to how the complainant came to know about the involvement of petitioner in this occurrence. Law is quite settled on the point that the supplementary statement has got no value in the eyes of law. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner the petitioner was juvenile at the time of occurrence because he was sixteen years of age. To substantiate his contention the learned counsel has appended Birth Certificate of the petitioner with this file. All the other co-accused of the petitioner either nominated in the F.I.R. or introduced through supplementary statement have been allowed bail by this Court. Admittedly nobody had seen the petitioner committing murder of the complainant's son. No test-identification parade has been conducted in this case to positively connect the petitioner with the commission of alleged offence which is mandatory in such like cases.

5. This Court is surprised to note some peculiar features of this case which are that the criminal case in hand is belonging to the year 2005, the occurrence in this case had taken place on 28/29-11-2005, the petitioner was nominated in supplementary statement on 2-12-2005, he had been arrested in this case on 7-12-2005, report under section 173 was submitted before the learned trial Court in the year 2006 but so far trial of the petitioner has not seen any significant progress. It is very sorrow state of affairs to express here that expeditious disposal of criminal cases is one of the constitutional responsibility of the courts and every Presiding Officer should apprise of this fact but unfortunately the learned trial Court has not yet succeeded in putting the trial on a smooth path so that the same could be concluded in near future, thus, the delay in conclusion of trial, in every stretch of imagination, cannot be attributed to the petitioner. In the backdrop of such a situation the petitioner has irrefutably earned statutory right of bail due to delay in conclusion of trial in his favour. It is also needless to add here that no accused could be kept in jail for an indefinite period.

6. For what has been discussed above the case against the petitioner calls for further inquiry into his guilt within the purview of subsection (2) of section 497, Cr.P.C. This petition is, therefore, allowed on merits as well as on the ground of delay in trial and the petitioner is admitted to bail subject to his furnishing bail bond in the sum of Rs.100,000 (Rupees one hundred thousand only) with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court.

7. Before parting with this order I shall feel it inevitable to direct the learned trial Court to put his full strength to defuse the possibility of causing delay in conclusion of trial and personally explore all possibility which provide him help in early conclusion of trial. MWA/F-1/L Bail granted.