2006 P Cr (PLP)

ASIF SAEED KHAN KHOSA, J.

Through this petition Abid Sohail petitioner has sought post-arrest bail in case F.I.R. No.42 registered at Police Station Khurrianwala, District Faisalabad on 29-1-2002 in respect of offences under sections 148/302/149, P.P.C.

2. The petition in hand happens to be the fourth petition filed by the petitioner before this Court seeking the same relief in the self-same criminal case. The first petition, filed by the petitioner (Criminal Miscellaneous No.4766/B of 2003) was dismissed by this Court on 24-11-2003. The second petition filed by the petitioner (Criminal Miscellaneous No.2965/B of 2005) was dismissed by this Court on 12-5-2005 and the third petition filed by the petitioner (Criminal Miscellaneous No.5216/B of 2005) had been disposed of by this Court vide order, dated 27-7-2005 and a direction had been issued to the learned trial Court to conclude the petitioner's trial within the next three months. It has been maintained by the petitioner through the present fourth petition that the above-mentioned direction issued by this Court has not been complied with and, thus, he may be admitted to bail. I had called for the report from the learned trial Court in this regard and the report dated 3-12-2005 submitted by the 'learned trial Court shows that the petitioner's trial has already commenced and statements of as many as eight prosecution witnesses have already been recorded. The said report, however, points out that two absconding co-accused of the petitioner have now been arrested by the police and a supplementary challan in this case is now to be submitted. At this stage the learned counsel for the State has informed the Court that the requisite supplementary challan has already been submitted before the learned trial Court. In the above-mentioned report the learned trial Court has assured this Court that every effort would be made to conclude the petitioner's trial "as early as possible". The learned counsel for the petitioner has maintained that on account of failure by the learned trial Court to abide by the above-mentioned direction issued by this Court regarding completion of the petitioner's trial within the specified period the petitioner has earned a right to be admitted to bail on this score alone. I have, however, remained unable to subscribe to this submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner. It goes without saying that a direction issued by this Court to a trial Court regarding conclusion of an accused person's trial within a specified period is only an administrative direction and the same does not confer any right of bail on the accused person if such direction is not complied with by the trial Court on account of any exigency or any fresh development in the case.

3. In the case in hand the F.I.R. had been lodged with reasonable promptitude and the present petitioner had not only been specifically nominated therein but the fatal fire-arm injury on the forehead of Mst. Ghulam Fatima deceased had been attributed to the petitioner therein. It B is not disputed that the eye-witnesses mentioned in the F.I.R. have so far stood by their statements made before the police fully implicating the petitioner in the alleged offences and prima facie the medical evidence confirms the seat of injury allegedly caused by the petitioner to the deceased as well as use of a fire-arm by the petitioner for causing the said injury. Apparently the petitioner stands directly connected with the motive set up in the F.I.R. During the investigation a gun .12 bore had also been recovered from the petitioner's possession and the report of the Forensic Science Laboratory available on the record shows that the said gun had matched with one of the crime-empties recovered from the place of occurrence. The case against the petitioner is quite distinguishable from that against Muhammad Ali co-accused who has already been admitted to post-arrest bail by this Court inasmuch as the Investigating Officer had not felt sure about the said co-accused's participation in the main occurrence and the age of the said co-accused as well as the state of his health were such that this Court had felt persuaded to admit him to post-arrest bail. Those considerations are surely not relevant to the case against the present petitioner.

4. It has already been observed above that the learned trial Court has assured this Court in his above-mentioned report that every effort would be made by it to conclude the petitioner's trial "as early as possible". Therefore, I have not felt persuaded to admit the petitioner to bail at such a stage in view of the above-mentioned peculiarities. It is hoped that the learned trial Court shall live up to its commitment made before this Court regarding early conclusion of the petitioner's trial. With these observations this petition is hereby dismissed. H.B.T./A-53/L Bail refused.