1998 PLP 1344 (MLD)

(3) PLD 1987 Karachi 66 (4) PLD 1988 Karachi 78 (5) PLD 1986 Karachi 224/646 (6)PLD 1990 Supreme Court 934

6. On the other hand, Sardar Abdul Hamid Khan learned counsel for the complainant submitted that appellants are responsible for the murder of five innocent persons. One of them, in passed settled the dispute of the murder of his son's with deceased Altaf Hussain and received Ten Lac rupees from him in the open Court. But prior to that, he hired services of some criminals from Gujrat (Pakistan) and with their convenience, murdered five innocent persons. According to him, about nine persons have absconded. It cannot be ruled out that if these accused persons are released on bail, they too might abscond. He further argued that only two important prosecution witnesses out of rest of witnesses shall be examined in this case. Both these witnesses were present but due to non-availability of the record with the trial Court, their evidence was not recorded on the last date of hearing. According to the learned counsel, the record of the case was summoned by this Court in the appeal filed by the appellants for their release on bail. He supported the order under appeal passed by the trial Court, whereby bail was declined to the present appellants. He also relied upon the following authorities. (1) 1996 SCR 238. (2) 1988 Pakistan Criminal law Journal 703. (3) 1996 Pakistan Criminal Law Journal 22. (4) 1997 MLD 2016. (5) 1994 Pakistan Criminal Law Journal 308. (6) Pakistan Criminal Law journal 1510. (7) PLD 1975 Lahore 530.

7. I have given careful consideration to the respective contentions by the learned counsel for the parties.

8. In this case, bail is urged on the ground of statutory delay by the appellants for the reason that they are detained continuously for a period exceeding two years, but their trial has not yet concluded. They, therefore, wants to take the benefit of 3rd proviso recently add in section 497, Cr.P.C. through amendment.

9. There is no dispute that the appellants are behind the bars for a period exceeding two years. It is also admitted fact that they have no hand in the delay of their trial. In this case, however, even prosecution cannot be blamed for the delay of the trial. No hard and fast rule is laid down in bail matters, as such, there is no need to discuss the judgments which have been relied-upon by the learned Counsel for the parties in this case for and against their respective contentions. All these cases are distinguishable on facts. The 3rd proviso has been added in section 497, Cr.P.C., to extend benefit of bail to those accused- persons whose trial has not been concluded within a period of two years and where delay amounted to abuse of process of Courts. In the present case, the conduct of the appellants cannot be ignored. Prima facie, the role attributed to them can safely labelled them to be the dangerous and desperate criminals, within the contemplation of 4th proviso of section 497, Cr.P.C. The Trial Court has, therefore, committed no error while refusing them the concession of bail. Nine accused-persons, in this case are absconders. The apprehension of the learned Counsel for the complainant, therefore, is not without substance that if appellants are released on bail, they also might abscond. The appeal is, therefore, without force as such is rejected.

10. In the light of the above discussion, it appears appropriate to direct the trial Court to expedite the trial of the appellants. The observations recorded in this order are tentative in nature. These, therefore, shall he ignored while passing the final order in the case. H.B.T./36/Sh.C(AJ&K) Appeal rejected.