2018 PLP 1556 (MLD)

MALIK HAQ NAWAZ, J.

The petitioners were booked for the offence under sections 354/392/458, P.P.C. vide FIR No.96/2014 Police Station City Gilgit.

2. In the first round the petitioners failed to obtain relief of bail up to this Court. The petitioners filed a fresh bail application on the ground that the accused are rotting in Jail since over two years, without any fault on their part. The case is fixed for arguments since last over 3 months but the arguments could not heard due to delaying tactics of counsel for the complainant and learned District Public prosecutor.

3. The learned Dy. Advocate General opposed the bail petition and submitted that the case is now fixed for arguments and case will be heard and decided on the date already fixed for arguments. With the mutual consent of the parties following order was passed on 25/07/2016. The same is reproduced as under:- "The learned counsel for the petitioners stated at bar the case is fixed for final arguments since last three months but for one or the other reasons arguments could not be heard. He further submits that he will not press the petition if necessary direction is given to the trial Court for disposal of the case on the date fixed for arguments. The learned Dy. AG conceded and agreed to the proposal of the learned counsel for the petitioner. In view above, I, direct the learned trial Court to dispose of the case before 31 Aug. 2016 positively and compliance report shall be submitted to the Registrar of this Court. "

4. The petitioners have filed this Petition on fresh grounds that despite clear direction issued by this Court, the trial Court did not conclude the trial as was directed by this Court and non compliance of the order has entitled the petitioners for the grant of bail. The learned Dy.AG could not rebut the factual position.

5. On 25.06.2016 on the undertaking of learned Dy. A.G. the trial Court was directed to hear the argument and dispose off the case before 31 August 2016, but it seems that learned trial Court did not bother to follow the direction of this Court, which is not taken in good taste and is a matter of concern. The learned Dy. A.G. also did not bother to instruct District Public Prosecutor to ensure compliance of orders of this Court, likewise trial Court also did not pay any heed to the orders of this Court. To satisfy myself that the orders dated 25.07.2016 were conveyed to the learned trial court, well in time I, called for the file of trial Court. On perusal of file it revealed that the orders of this Court dated 25.07.2016 were received in trial Court on 01.08.2016 and were seen by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge Gilgit on the same day. The case was already fixed for 03.08.2016. On the appointed date the learned counsel for the petitioners and DPP were present and the case was adjourned for 09.08.16 due to the absence of complainant counsel, who was statedly busy in Chief Court. The Trial Court adjourned the case for 09.08.2016 and before the adjourned date the learned trial judge proceeded on leave and during his leave, he was promoted as District and Sessions Judge and posted to District Astore.

6. I, am of the firm view that whenever a zippy and funky direction is given by a superior Court, it must be acted upon or at least some efforts seemingly should have been made to achieve the object. If any direction given by Chief Court is not complied with by District Judiciary it may expose the responsibles for disciplinary action. The trial Court was directed to submits compliance report to the Registrar of this Court by 31 Aug, 2016 but on inquiry it was informed by the Registrar that no such report has yet been received, which is an another glaring defiance of the orders of this Court. The Staff of the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, was bound to inform the predecessor Judge about the direction of this Court, which they also failed, to comply. I wanted to initiate disciplinary action against the delinquent officials of the staff of Additional Sessions Judge but I exercise restraint and warn them to be careful in future. Further adjournment of the bail application would negate the very spirit of the order of this Court dated 25.07.2016.

7. What have been discussed above the petitioners are allowed bail subject to furnishing bail bonds in sum of Rs.10,00000/- (Ten Lac) with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of trial Court.

8. Following short order was dictated in open Court at the conclusion of arguments. "The petitioners are admitted to bail subject to furnishing bail bonds sum of Rs.10,00000/-(Ten Lac) with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of trial Court".

9. The above are the detailed reasons of the said judgment. HBT/132/GB Bail granted.