2006 P Cr (PLP)

MUHAMMAD AFZAL SOOMRO, J.

By this common order I intent to dispose of these four bail applications in which bail plea is raised on the ground of hardship and delay in trial. Mr. Amanullah Shaikh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the applicant Ajeeb Hakro in Criminal Bail Application No.281 of 2005 argued that the applicant was arrested on 28-10-2002 and the charge was framed on 11-5-2004 and no material witnesses examined except Medico-legal Officer; that the trial Court is lying vacant since 14-1-2005; that since the arrest of applicant no progress is made in the trial. He further submits that delay in trial is not on the part of present applicant and applicant cannot be put in jail without trial for an indefinite period. He has relied upon case of Sajan v. The State reported in 2005 SLJ

78. Mr. Roshan Ali Solangi appearing on behalf of applicant, Gulsher Kalhoro in Criminal Bail Application No.209 of 2005 has mainly contended that the applicant is in jail since last about 30 months but no progress is made in trial. Besides this he has also urged bail plea on merits. He submits that as per F.I.R. applicant and co-accused Ashiq collectively caused hatchet and Lathi blows to injured Aijaz but the medical evidence shows that all three injuries on the person of Aijaz were caused with hard and blunt substance. This creates doubt and makes the case of applicant one of further inquiry. Mr. Asif Ali Abdul Razzak Soomro, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the applicant Tiloo alias Rehmatullah has mainly contended that the applicant was arrested on 17-9-1996 and his continuous detention is jail till the date but trial Court has failed to conclude the trial. He submits that charge was framed on 14-12-1999 i.e. after about 3 years and 3 months to the date of arrest of the applicant/accused. He further asserted that in spite of issuing B. Ws. for 74 times, trial Court has failed to procure the attendance of P.Ws. who all are police personnel. He further submits that applicant is languishing in jail for no fault on his part from the last about 9 years. He has relied upon case of Ghulam Abbas alias Abbasi and others v. The State PLD 2005 Kar.

255. Mr. Muhammad Ayaz Soomro, learned counsel for the applicant Ali Gohar Mundrani, mainly contended that the applicant was arrested on 17-5-2002 and since then he is continuously in jail but the trial has not yet concluded. The material witnesses have not been examined. He further urged that conclusion of trial is not expected in foreseeable future as the trial Court vide diary dated 19-3-2005 has issued proclamation under section 87, Cr.P.C. against the complainant and two eye-witnesses. He has also urged that applicant is an old man aged about 65170 years and he cannot be put further in jail without trial for an indefinite period. He has relied upon following case- laws:- (1) Punhal and others v. The State 2004 PCr.LJ 96; (2) Abdul Hammed v. The State 2003 MLD 19; (3) Abdul Khanan v. The State 2004 PCr.LJ 92; (4) Abdul Rasheed v. The State 2004 PCr.LJ

652. I have carefully considered the arguments of learned counsel for the respective parties, perused case diaries and other material available on record. It appears that in Criminal Bail Application No.281 of 2005 applicant Ajeeb is languishing in jail since more than 2 and half years but no material witness has yet been examined. The perusal of case diaries shows that applicant has not contributed toward delay in trial but due to non-availability of P.Ws. and also complainant on various dates for which B.Ws. were also issued and as well as due to transfer of Presiding Officer, case could not proceed. I have also noted that the applicant was acquitted in Crime No.116 of 2002 registered at Police Station Ratodero with regard to recovery of crime weapon i.e. pistol. Under these circumstances, bail is granted to the applicant provided he furnishes solvent surety in the sum of Rs.2,00,000 (two lacs only) and P.R. bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of trial Court. As regards the Criminal Bail Application No.209 of 2005 is concerned, it appears that the applicant Gulsher Kalhoro has remained in jail since 22-11-2002 but no progress has been made in the trial. It also appears, that on merits, bail plea of the applicant has already been declined by this Court vide order, dated 6-5-2005 the perusal of the case diaries shows that on various dates defence counsel moved application for adjournment or remained absent. No doubts P.Ws. also were missing on various dates, but the contribution of learned counsel of present applicant towards delay has adversely reflected upon the plea of applicant raised on the ground of hardship in these proceedings. Resultantly, bail application of the applicant Gulsher is dismissed. However, trial Court is directed to proceed with the trial expeditiously and examine at least material witnesses within three months. In case trial Court fail to comply with the directions, applicant would be at liberty to move fresh bail application. In Criminal Bail Application No.172 of 2005, the applicant was arrested on 17-9-1996 and since then he is continuously in jail but the trial has not yet been concluded. It seems that applicant has passed more than 8 and half years in jail. Learned counsel has claimed that despite issuance of B.Ws. for more than 74 occasions, trial Court has failed to procure their attendance. This fact is confirmed from case diaries which have been brought before me. Apparently, the trial had not been concluded for such a pretty long time due to non-appearance of P.Ws. for which the applicant cannot be put in jail for an indefinite period. In fact the applicant had earned the right of bail on the ground of delay before framing charge which was framed after three years from the date of arrest of the applicant i.e. 17-9-1996. In this background the delay in conclusion of the trial for nine years appears to be shocking, therefore, I am of the considered opinion that at this stage, applicant has been able to make a case for bail which is granted provided he furnishes surety in the sum of Rs.2,00,000 (two Lacs) and P.R. bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court. In Criminal Bail Application No.212 of 2005, the applicant Haji Muhammad Hanif alias Aril' was arrested on 17-5-2002 and since then he is behind bars continuously but the trial has not yet been concluded. I have also perused the case diaries and find that the diary dated 19-3-2005 shows that the trial Court has ordered for issuance of proclamation under section 87, Cr.P.C. against complainant and two eye-witnesses. It has already passed a period of three years in conclusion of the trial and in view of above case diary it does not seem to happen within foreseeable future. Besides this, on merits only role of keeping the weapon at night upon complainant party and issuing them threats has been assigned to the present applicant and that there is admitted enmity between the parties. In these circumstances, I am of the considered view that the applicant has been able to make out a case for bail which is granted provided he furnishes solvent surety in the sum of Rs.2,00,000 (two lacs) and P.R bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of trial Court. Criminal Bail Applications Nos.281, 209, 172 and 212 of 2005, stand disposed of along with listed applications. H.B.T./M-98/K Order accordingly.