1983 P Cr (PLP)

Criminal Bail Application No. 321 of 1981, decided on 9th May, 1982 ‑‑--S. 497‑Bail‑Murder case‑Delay in finalisation of trial caused by defence ‑Bail not granted. P L D 1982 S C 424 rel. S. M. Amir for Applicant M. I. Memon, Addl, A.‑G. with Kh. Adeel Ahmed for the State. Date of hearing : 9th May, 1982. Bail plea of applicant Shahabuddin, who is accused of offence under Ss. 302/377 and 396, P. P. C. has been rejected by this Court on merits vide order dated 13th September, 1981. Applicant moved the trial Court for bail on the ground of delay and his application has been rejected vide order dated 12th April, 1982. It appears from the order of the trial Court mentioned above that even on one occasion earlier than that bail plea was moved in the trial Court on the ground of delay which was rejected by the trial Court vide older dated l0th February, 1982. The grievance of the learned counsel for the applicant is that more than two years have expired since the applicant is taken into custody and trial has not concluded. The trial Court in the impugned order has rejected the bail plea for the reason that perusal of case diary indicated that at least seven adjournments were obtained by the defence and that made material contribution to the delay in the progress of trial proceedings. The trial Court has relied upon the decision of the Supreme Court published in P L D 1982 S C

424. Correct legal position is enunciated in this decision which is to the effect that the intention of legislation in making amend ment in section 497, Cr. P. C. to allow bail on the ground of delay is not to permit the Court to calculate amount of delay caused by the defence. It has been further observed in that decision that all that is necessary is to see whether the finalisation of the trial has, in any manner, been delayed by an act or omission on the part of an accused. In the reported case 8 adjournments were sought by the defence. In the instant case learned counsel fog the applicant has submitted before me that 4 adjournments had been sought by the defence but learned Addl. A.‑G. has pointed out that the case diary shows that in all 7 adjournments have been sought by the defence. Not only this but on those dates with the exception of on P. Ws were present and could not be examined and had to be bound down for the next date. In such circumstances in view of the legal position stated in the decision of the Supreme Court and the fact that seven adjournments have been sought in this case at the instance of defence, I reject the bail plea on the ground of delay. Mr. Amir Naqvi has submit ted that about 28 months have been passed and the trial proceedings have not concluded. In the circumstances the trial Court is directed to com plete the proceedings within three months.