1977 P Cr (PLP)

A case was registered against the petitioner along with his son, under section 302/34, P. P. C. on 10‑9‑1974. The petitioner was arrested on 11‑9‑74 and has remained in custody ever since that date. The challan against him was sent up on 13‑11‑1974. The record indicates that out of 13 P. Ws. in this case only three had been examined by the Committing Magistrate when the proceedings had to be abandoned became of the new legislation and now the record of the case is lying in the Court of the Sessions Judge for direct trial which might take considerably long time before its turn came. I summoned the judicial file of this case in order to satisfy myself as to whether the delay had been caused in this case because of the fault of the petitioner or that of the prosecution. I have already mentioned that the challan was sent up in this case on 13‑11‑1974. The new legislation came into force in December, 1975. However, for a period of full one year while the matter remained pending before the Committing Magistrate, only three P. Ws. had been examined out of

13. The record indicates that the case was fixed before the Magistrate 16 times in one year before the file was transferred to the Sessions Court. Two P. Ws. were examined on 4‑9‑1975 and one P. W. was examined on 22‑11‑1975 but on other occasions it appears that the inquiry could not proceed against the petitioner and the matter was delayed not because of his fault but that of the prosecution for non‑production of P. Ws. etc. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has been in jail since the date of his arrest i. e. 11‑9‑1974 and the trial against him is not likely to be fixed for another one year as in serial order the number of his case is

300. It is submitted by the learned counsel that if this was the position, the turn of the trial of the petitioner might not come even for a period of two years. Taking into consideration the fact that the petitioner had been in jail for about two years and the inquiry proceedings against him were delayed not because of his fault but that of the prosecution, I am of the opinion that in the circumstances, I am left with no other alternative except to release the petitioner on bail subject to his furnishing security in the! t sum of Rs. 25,000 (Rupees twenty‑five thousand) with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Assistant Commissioner, Lyallpur. I order accordingly. This petition stands disposed of. Bail allowed,