2017 P Cr (PLP)

RAJA SHAHID MEHMOOD ABBASI, J.

Through this petition, the petitioner Muhammad Ashraf seeks post arrest bail in case FIR No.215 dated 10-10-2011 registered under sections 302, 148, 149, P.P.C. registered at Police Station Chontra, Rawalpindi.

2. The precise allegation against the petitioner is that the petitioner armed with .30 bore rifle along with his other co-accused made indiscriminate firing on different parts of body of Muhammad Taj, who succumbed to the injuries at the spot.

3. Heard. Record perused.

4. It divulges from record that earlier post arrest bail of the petitioner was dismissed on merits by this Court vide order dated 25.11.2013 passed in Criminal Miscellaneous No. 1718-B-2013. Thereafter Crl. Misc. No.350-B-2013 filed for post arrest bail was also dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 28.3.2013. Now, through the present criminal misc. petition, the petitioner seeks bail on statutory ground. In order to deal with the contentions of the learned counsel regarding the delay of conclusion of trial and bail on statutory ground, it is requirement of law under proviso of section 497, Cr.P.C. to examine the reasons of delay in conclusion of trial, if the same is not concluded within stipulated period, and it is to be seen with great care that whether accused is already convicted offender for an offence punishable with death or imprisonment for life and whether accused is desperate and dangerous criminal or is accused of an act of terrorism or whether the trial of the accused has been occasioned by an act or omission of accused or any other person acting on his behalf. From the attached certified copies of order sheet reflects that charge was framed against the petitioner on 07-11-2013 and on most of the dates i.e. On 13.3.2014, 20.3.2014, 11.4.2014, 14.4.2014, 17.4.2014 and 24.4.2014, 16.6.2014, 19.6.2014, 21.6.2014, 25.6.2014, 27.6.2014, 6.9.2014, 9.9.2014, 17.9.2014, 22.10.2014 and 15.11.2014, the case was adjourned on the request from the defence side. On 1.12.2014, learned trial Court passed an order that in case of non-cross-examination on the witnesses, right of cross-examination of the petitioner shall be closed. Despite this order the witnesses were not cross-examined. In such situation, when the accused himself is responsible for the delay of conclusion of trial even after the lapse of two years' statutory period, right of bail cannot be extended in favour of the petitioner. On this view authoritative preposition of law is settled by larger Bench of Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan in case "Liaqat Hussain v. The State", (PLD 1999 SC 504).

5. In the above scenario, it is clear that the delay in the trial has been occasioned by the accused/petitioner, hence, neither he is entitled nor can claim bail on statutory ground as held in (1998 SCMR 897).

6. So far as ground agitated by the learned counsel for the petitioner that accused/petitioner is almost 70 years of age but now the law is settled that old age itself is no ground for grant of bail unless the person is sick and infirm. No such report regarding infirmity or sickness of the petitioner is available on the file, therefore, he cannot be granted bail on the ground of being person of old and advance age.

7. So far as application of section 91, Cr.P.C. is concerned, the same is not applicable in the instant case as petitioner was arrested and he sought his bail after arrest under section 497, Cr.P.C. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan in the judgment titled "Sarwar and others v. The State and others", (2014 SCMR 1762) has settled the principle of application of section 91, Cr.P.C. as it would apply only where the accused has been summoned to face the trial and it does not apply when the release of the accused has been sought under section 497, Cr.P.C.

8. The nutshell of the above discussion is that the instant petition is devoid of merits is hereby dismissed. SL/M-29/L Bail declined.