1998 P Cr (PLP)

Shaukat Ali for the State. The petitioner seeks bail in case F.I.R. No.58 of 1995, dated 2-2-1995 under section 302/324/337-A(ii)/148/149, P.P.C. Police Station Gaggo, District Vehari, mainly on the statutory ground i.e. more than two years have elapsed since the registration of the case and the trial has not concluded.

2. The prosecution story as given in the F.I.R. briefly stated is that petitioner alongwith others having armed themselves with deadly weapons attacked the complainant party as a result of which, petitioner's son Allah Ditta died and others received injuries.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner relies on Zahid Hussain Shah v. The State PLD 1995 SC 49 to contend that after the expiry of the statutory period petitioner earns a right to be released on bail. He lastly contended that the adjournments sought by the counsel for the accused cannot be attributed to the petitioner. In support of this submission, he refers to Liaqat Ali v. The State PLJ 1997 Crl. C. (Lahore 348).

4. Learned counsel for the State on the other hand, has opposed the prayer for bail by submitting that petitioner is attributed a specific injury to the deceased; that the delay in trial is attributable to the petitioner and that the offences alleged being heinous, petitioner is not entitled to the grant of bail.

5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have given anxious thoughts to the arguments addressed at the Bar.

6. A report was called from the learned trial Court as to the factors which led to delay in trial. As per the said report, the case was adjourned on the request of the learned counsel for the petitioner on 21-10-1996, 24-11-1996 and 19-2-1997. On 13-3-1997, the case could not proceed as one of the accused was not present. Again on 27-3-1997, the case had to be adjourned on the request of learned counsel for the petitioner and on 26-5-1997, again defence counsel was absent. It is evident that the trial has prolonged partly on account ,of adjournments sought by learned counsel for the petitioner. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the adjournments sough: by learned counsel for the petitioner cannot be attributed to the petitioner is not a correct exposition of law and is conflict with the law laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court in Syed Abdul Baqi Shah v. The State 1997 SCMR 32 wherein at page 34, it was observed as under:-- "The perusal of the above provision of law certainly extends in favour of the accused person a statutory right to be enlarged on bail, if he is charged with an offence punishable with death and period exceeding two years had elapsed since his detention but the trial has not concluded, provided the delay in the trial has not occurred by an act or omission on his part. It is a matter of record that more than one adjournments of the case had taken place on account of petitioner's counsel being not available: therefore, the benefit of third proviso to section 497(1), Cr.P.C. cannot be extended in favour of the petitioner as the delay in the trial of the case had partly occasioned on account of the adjournments secured by his counsel."

5. For what has been discussed above, there is no merit in this petition which fails and is hereby dismissed. H.B.T./A-208/L Petition dismissed.