1996 P Cr (PLP)

S. 497

Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S. 324/337-A(i)/337-F(iii)/337-V/34-- Bail

Although circumstances were available for grant of bail to accused, yet discretion was not exercised in their favour as they were not permitting the completion of the trial for obtaining release ,on bail

Bail was declined to accused in circumstances. Muhammad Zafar Shah for Petitioners. Iltaf Ibrahim Qureshi for the Complainant. The four petitioners seek bail after arrest in case F.I.R. No.142 of 1994, dated 30-3-1994, registered at Police Station, Pakpattan Saddar, under sections 324, 337-A(i), 337-F(iii) and 337-V-F, read with section 34, P.P.C. Muhammad Saeed, petitioner, is alleged to be armed with .12 bore gun and having injured Yusaf on his head by firing, Muhammad Shareef, petitioner, is also alleged to be armed with .12 bore gun and is stated to have caused injury on the leg of Latif, deceased. Jehangir and Talib, accused/petitioners are stated to have been armed with Sotas and have injured Abdul Khaliq. It is stated that F.I.R. was lodged on 30-3-1994 and since then the petitioners are in confinement.

2. By relying on Muhammad Afsar v. The State 1994 SCMR 2051, the learned counsel has rightly pointed out that now the law is that in an attempt to kill if some injury is caused, then the offender is liable to the sentence provided for the actual injury caused. He further submitted that keeping in view the nature of injuries none of the petitioners is liable to be punished to death, imprisonment for life or imprisonment for ten years or more. According to the learned counsel, since the case goes out of prohibitory clause, the petitioners are entitled to be bailed out. It is also stated that in an earlier occurrence the complainant party of the present case is an accused of similar offences and they are enjoying the concession of bail.

3. Learned counsel appearing for the complainant has resisted the grant of bail on the ground that not only the challan has been submitted in Court but the actual trial is pending and is being delayed on account of the accused/ petitioners. It is pointed out by him that the charge was framed on 23-6-1994 and the case was fixed for recording of prosecution evidence for 13-10-1994, 14-11-1994, 28-11-1994 and 12-12-1994, but on each date was adjourned on account of the accused in spite of the fact that as many as seven prosecution witnesses were available. Ultimately the trial Court recorded the examination-in -chief of the prosecution witnesses and the case is now pending for cross examination of the witnesses by the petitioner's counsel. It is vehemently submitted that on account of their own conduct the petitioners are disentitled to the concession of bail.

4. In the circumstances, the petitioners would have been allowed bail by me but for the reasons pointed out by the learned counsel for the complainant. My impression is that the petitioners are not permitting the completion of the trial for obtaining release on bail. It is unfortunate that it is generally the Courts and the system of administration of justice which is blamed for delaying disposal of justice, even though the blame lies on one or the other party. In the circumstances I decline the exercise of my discretion in favour of the petitioners and dismiss this bail petition.

5. It would be in the interest of justice to direct the completion of the trial by 28-2-1995. If the trial is not completed by that date for reasons not attributable to the petitioners, the petitioners may approach this Court again for the grant of bail. N.H.Q./M-2005/L Bail refused.