2007 PLP 824 (YLR)

MUNIB AHMED KHAN, J.--Granted subject to all just exceptions.

2. Learned counsel for the applicant has argued that on Bail Application No.147 of 2006 this Court has passed an order on 21-4-2006, wherein direction was given to the trial Court that it should expedite the trial and decide the matter within five months. He submits that thereafter the accused and his counsel were attending but the complainant side made adjournment applications on 22-7-2006, 26-8-2006, 14-9-2006, 29-9-2006 and 14-10-2006, therefore, the case could not proceed, as apparent from the case diaries. Learned counsel further submits that even on 22-11-2006 similar was the position. He has relied upon 1999 SCMR 2149 on the ground that when the directions of the High Court are not followed then the Honourable Supreme Court has admitted an accused person on bail. The learned counsel has further argued that even on merits the version of the complainant cannot be taken as correct as he has named six persons in the F.I.R. but three persons out of them, namely, Asghar, Sawand and Akbar have not been referred for trial and have been shown in Column No.2 of the challan. He further submits that the allegation against the applicant is that he along with Gul Hassan fired with the Kalashnikov but it cannot be said with certainty as to whose fire cause fatal injury, therefore, intention of murder cannot be attributed to the applicant in the circumstances. He further submits that although he remained absconder but was arrested on 21-11-2004 and for the last more than two years he is languishing in jail without trial and has suffered a lot. The learned State counsel has submitted that the accused has been named in the F.I.R. and direct allegation has been levelled against them but he could not satisfy the Court in respect to the veracity of the F.I.R. as he has not disputed the factual position in respect to letting off three persons named in the F.I.R. nor he has disputed the factual position in respect to the adjournment applications moved by the complainant after direction of this Court given on 21-4-2006. In the above circumstances and keeping in view that the applicant remained in jail for more than two years vis-a-vis veracity of the statement of the complainant in the F.I.R., in which he has named six persons but three have been let-off but no private complaint has been filed by the complainant and that the Complainant has been moving adjournment applications. In the circumstances, the applicant is admitted to bail on furnishing surety in the sum of Rs.200,000 and P.R. bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court. H.B.T./A-4/K Bail granted.