2018 PLP 1352 (MLD)

MALIK HAQ NAWAZ, J.

The petitioner was booked for the offences under sections 302/324/34/114, P.P.C., read with sections 21-L and 6/7 of ATA, 1997 vide FIR No.41/2012 registered at Police Station Baseen, Gilgit on 1.7.2012.

2. The petitioner applied for post arrest bail before the trial Court which was declined on 25.8.2013. The petitioner assailed the order of trial Court by submitting a bail application before this Court which also met with the same fate vide order dated 24.9.2013. The petitioner filed another bail application before the trial Court which also did not find favour with the learned trial Court vide order dated 25.6.2016. Being dissatisfied from the order of learned trial Court the petitioner has come to this Court for relief of bail in second round.

3. The main grievances of the petitioner raised at bar by the learned counsel are that the charge was framed in the year, 2013 and after a lapse of over 3 years only 6 P.Ws. have been examined and the conclusion of trial is not insight in near future. The learned counsel further submitted that after rejection of first bail application by this Court on 24-09-2013, the prosecution did not produced the witnesses in the trial Court intentionally just to prolong the miseries and hardships of the accused. The mala fide intention of the prosecution is evident from the order-sheets annexed with the petition. The learned further added that the mandatory provisions of law relating to the trial by Anti-Terrorism Courts have been violated and the concept of fair trial has been defeated. Prayed that the petitioner be admitted to bail in the above circumstances as the co-accused are enjoying bail facility having similar role.

4. On the other hand the learned Dy.A.G., controverted the arguments of the learned defense counsel and submitted that there exists a prima facie case against the petitioner as the material collected during investigation connects the accused/petitioner with the offences. The petitioner as he has confessed his guilt under section 21-H of Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997.

5. We have heard both the learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the previous order/judgment of this Court dated 24.9.2013. We also thoroughly examined the order-sheets of the trial Court annexed with the file and these were read out in open Court by the learned counsel for the petitioner and observed that the contention of the learned counsel is supported from the perusal of the order-sheets. The prosecution after rejection of first bail application by this Court on 24.9.2013 made no substantial progress to complete the case of the petitioner which is a clear departure from the relevant provision section 19(7) of Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 which makes it obligatory that on taking cognizance of a case, the trial will be conducted on day to day basis and the case shall be decided within seven days failing which the matter shall be brought to the notice of Chief Justice of the concerned High Court for appropriate directions. It is observed with concern that the learned trial Judge did not bother to follow the mandatory provision of law. The co-accused of the petitioner are already on bail and the petitioner cannot be kept in jail for an indefinite period.

6. The result of the above discussion is that the petitioner is admitted to bail subject to furnishing his bail bonds in the sum of Rs.10,00000/- (Rupees ten lac only) with two solvent sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of trail Court. WA/144/GB Bail granted.