2005 PLP 1979 (YLR)

Bail is being sought merely on the ground that out of six eye-witnesses of the incident complainant Jumo and P.W. Muhammad-son of Leemon have filed their affidavits before this Court exonerating the applicant. Learned counsel in support of his case has placed reliance on the case reported as Muhammad Nawaz and others v. The State 1989 PCr.LJ 1126; Ghulam Hyder Gadehi v. The State 2002 PCr.LJ 564; Ali Muhammad and another v. The State PLD 2002 Karachi 125; Muhammad Nawaz alias Naja v. The State 1991 SCMR 111 and Rehmat Ali and another v. The State 1979 SCMR

30. Mr. Rasheed Ahmed Qureshi Assistant A.-G. has opposed to the grant of bail and argued that affidavits of only two eye-witnesses have been placed on record, that too for the first time before this Court. Furthermore the case law referred by the learned counsel is not applicable on all fours. Learned A.A.-G. has placed reliance on the case of Abdul Haq alias Qavi v. The State 1996 PCr.LJ 1115 and Naseer Ahmed v. The State PLD 1997 SC 347, where bail was refused while treating the filing of the affidavits as an attempt to tamper with the evidence. I have given due consideration to the arguments of the learned counsel for the applicant and the learned A.A.-G. Indeed in certain cases bails are being granted by the superior Courts on the basis of affidavits of the eye-witnesses but only in those cases where all the eye-witnesses have exonerated the accused from commission of the offence.. Bail was declined to the accused by the apex Court in the case of Naseer Ahmed v. The State PLD 1997 SC 347, where all the witnesses and Mashirs had not filed their affidavits hence case-law cited by the learned counsel for the applicant is distinguishable. Furthermore, plea of bail in view of the affidavits of two eye-witnesses has been urged for the first time before this Court and rule of propriety requires that all such pleas, as available, should be raised before the Court of the first instance. In these circumstances, I do not feel inclined to extend the concession of bail to the applicant who has been directly nominated in the F.I.R. with specific role of causing death after committing lurking house trespass by night in the house of complainant in order to abduct a woman in presence of all the inmates of the house. This bail application is therefore, dismissed. However, I may observe here that the observations made above are just tentative in nature and shall not adversely affect the trial. At this stage learned counsel for the applicant requests that a direction be issued to the trial Court to proceed with the case as early as possible because despite so much time having passed even charge has not been framed. Indeed early trial is right of an accused and the Courts are always expected to dispose of the cases as early as possible. The fact that the Courts are over burdened also cannot be ignored but despite all such difficulties, the cases in which the accused are in custody are to be given preference. While disposing of this application I will direct. the learned trial Court to take all possible efforts to ensure that the charge is framed without any unnecessary delay and the set of eye-witnesses is examined within six months from the receipt of this order, and if, thereafter a fresh ground for bail is made out, the accused shall be at liberty to file a bail application before the learned trial Court in the first instance. H.B.T./S-121/K Bail application dismissed.