1988 P Cr (PLP)

Exemption allowed.

2. The applicant is facing trial under section 302, P.P.C. before the learned IIIrd Addl. Sessions Judge, Karachi West. The bail has been sought on behalf of the applicant mainly on the ground of statutory delay. It has been contended by the learned counsel for the applicant that the period of two years has expired but the trial of the case has not yet concluded, and the delay in trial if any, has not been occasioned by any act or omission of the applicant or his counsel. He has further contended that at the most applicant was responsible for obtaining one adjournment which could not be said to be mala fide. That even the order passed by this Court on 2-8-1987 directing the trial Court to complete the trial within one and half month was not complied with. Mr. Abdul Ghafoor, Mangi A.A.-G. has conceded to the grant of bail to the applicant in view of the above circumstances, but he has further contended that in view of the fact that it was a murder case heavy amount of surety should be fixed. I have considered the contentions of the learned counsel and have gone through the F.I.R, order rejecting bail application, my order dated 2-8-1987 giving direction to the trial Court, and the case diary of the case. The case diary clearly shows that the applicant was responsible only for obtaining one adjournment, and the applicant was in jail from 4-10-1985 till todate, and there is also nothing to show that the adjournment was obtained mala fide. In Dur Mohammad v. The State P L D 1983 Lah. 24 it was observed that:- "The act or omission provided for in third proviso to subsection (1) of section 497, Cr.P.C. means wrongful act or omission resulting in unnecessary and avoidable delay in the conclusion of the trial. On the face of it, this appears to be the intention of the Legislature. If that were not so, then man accused persons would be deprived of the benefit of this provision simply because delay in the conclusion of the trial had been caused by an innocent and bona fide act on their part or any person acting on their behalf. That surely cannot be the intention of the Legislature. It is well-settled principle of interpretation of Statutes that construction on a statute should be beneficial to the citizen and if there can be two inter pretations of a provision of law in statute, the one which is consistent with reason should be adopted and the one which leads to absurdity or unreasonableness or patent injustice to a citizen should be avoided." In view of the above legal and factual position I am of the considered view that the applicant is entitled to bail in spite of the fact that one adjournment was obtained on his behalf. I therefore direct that the applicant shall be released on bail on furnishing surety in the sum of Rs.l lac (Rs. 1,00,000) and PR bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court. However, I expect that the learned trial Judge will show respect for the direction of this Court and will carry on the same in future without any delay on his part. If in any case the witnesses do not turn up, he has power to issue coercive process, and if the accused are not produced by Jail authorities then he has power to take action against Jail authorities under Contempt Laws M.Y.H/N-94/K Bail granted.