1977 P Cr (PLP)

The appellant alongwith seven others is facing trial for offences under section 302/149, P. P. C. at Karachi and has been in custody since February 1975. On 1‑3‑1976, Mr. Justice Muhammad Haleem had directed that the application for bail be repeated if the trial was not concluded within three months. On 29‑6‑1976, a bail application was repeated and it was urged that no progress whatsoever had been made in the case since the date of the order referred to above, Mr. Justice Fakhruddin G. Ibrahim, therefore, observed "In the circumstances it would be fair, as was suggested by the learned Assistant Advocate‑General to call for a report from the Additional Sessions Judge as to why no progress was made in the case before me. To come up on 12‑7‑1976." Although the matter was posted for hearing to 12‑7‑1976 and thereafter, but it finally came to be heard on 13‑9‑1976 again by Mr. Justice Muhammad Haleem; who passed the following order: "After examining the report dated 10th July 1976, sent by Mr. Muzaffar Ali Soomro, VI Additional Sessions Judge, I have no hesitation in saying that there is laxity on the part of the prosecution to proceed with the examination of the witnesses who, for one reason or the other, have not been examined, which delay could have been avoided. In case the trial of the case is not concluded within three weeks, I would consider whether bail should be allowed in view of the delay ensuing in the conclusion of the trial, and for this purpose on the application which should be put. up on 4th October 1976." On 4‑10‑1976, the application was again pressed on the ground that no progress had been made in spite of the orders dated 13‑9‑1976 passed by this Court. The Outward Register was, therefore, examined which showed that the order dated 13‑9‑1976 was duly sent to Court of Sessions, but as Office copy was not available on record, a report was once again called for to ascertain tile position and the date of hearing was fixed on 11‑10‑1976. On that day the report was the Court had not received received Mherein it was stated that the order dated 13‑9‑1976 passed by Mr. Justice Muhammad Haleem. As the next date of hearing of the case in the Court of Session was 13‑10‑1976, the hearing of this application was put off first to 13‑10‑1976 and thereafter to 14‑10‑1976 with a view to see whether any progress at all was made in the case. The learned counsel for the applicant made a statement that no witnesses were examined on 13‑10‑1976, which position was not denied by learned Assistant Advocate‑General appearing before me. Assuming that the Additional Sessions Judge had not received the order dated 13‑9‑1976, which had fixed the period of three weeks for conclud?ing the trial, evidently on account of the impression of an inexcusable. Delay being formed, then too it was expected that some progress at least should have been made on 13‑10‑1976 and further steps should have been taken to expedite the trial. This not having been done, the conclusion about the laxity on the part of the prosecution mentioned in the order dated 13‑9‑1976 is further confirmed and even the learned Assistant Advocate General had to concede to the grant of bail, but on the limited ground A of delay. In the circumstances of this case as stated above when an obvious disregard for the observation made by this Court is pointed out, I would grant bail to the applicant, which .would however be on the ground of delay alone and not on merits. This application is allowed and the applicant is ordered to be released on bail on furnishing security in the sum of Rs, 25,000 with one surety and P. R. bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of this Court or the Court of Sessions at Karachi. Petition allowed.