1973 P Cr (PLP)

Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898),

S. 4971498-Bail (Murder case)-Accused arrested on suspicion of murder-Enquiry not concluded to spite of direction for expeditious disposal prosecu tion witnesses not appearing though two dozen adjournments granted and bailable warrants issued for appearance-Accused released on ball, in circumstances of case-Penal Code (XLV of. 1860), ,S. 302. Raja Muhammad Sabir for Petitioners. Abdul Rashid Malik for the State. On 11th November 1969, Labha Chowkidar of village Abdian found the dead body lying in the fields, who lodged a .report about it at Police Station Narang on the same day and after the receipt of the post-mortem report the police registered a case under section 302, P. F. C. about it. In the course of the investigation that followed this dead body was identified as that of Jamal Khan, the driver of Taxi cab No. LED 5677 and the two petitioners Muhammad Riaz and Ilam Din, were arrested in April 1970 as having been last seen travelling with him in the same taxi. The recoveries of some articles allegedly removed from his person were also effected from the two petitioners and their co-accused. They were consequently prosecuted and are in the judicial lock-up since then. They unsuccessfully moved the Sessions Judge and then this Court for their release on bail in April 1971. Their request was refused as premature at that stage with a direction to the Magistrate concerned to expedite the enquiry pending against them by taking effective measures to obtain the attendance of the prosecution witnesses, but in spite of this direction the enquiry has not been concluded so far. They have accordingly approached this Court again on account of the inordinate delay in the completion of this enquiry and absence of any direct evidence against them. 2. It is not refused that none of the accused was even suspected to have any hand in the'' murder of this taxi driver when this case was registered by the police apparently because there was no eye-witness of the unfortunate incident. Their prosecution is thus based on the above-mentioned circumstantial evidence but eversince the dismissal of their last application on 30th April 1971 not a single witness has been examined in this enquiry although there have been no less than 24 adjournments with bailable warrants having been issued against the prosecution witnesses, and the police has failed to obtain the attendance of an one of them resulting in the indefinite detention of the two petitioners in the judicial lock-up. I am, therefore, left with n option but to direct their release from custody provided they can furnish a bond each in the sum of Rs. 10,000.00 (Rs. Ten thousand) with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Enquiry Magistrate.