1997 PLP 1592 (MLD)

Sahibzada Farooq Ali for Petitioner. Mian Abdur Rashid for the Complainant. Sh. Gul Muhammad for the State. The petitioner is arranged under section 302/34, P.P.C. for causing death of Muhammad Iqbal on 28‑4‑1993 at about 1‑00 p.m. A complaint was also filed regarding the occurrence, which is pending before the learned Sessions Judge, Multan. The charge was framed against the petitioner and others on 17‑5‑1994 and the trial proceeded accordingly. The case was twice adjourned i.e. on 12‑6‑1994 and 13‑6‑1994 due to non‑availability of the learned counsel for the defence. The evidence of the complainant was however, concluded on 27‑6‑1994. The remaining prosecution witnesses as shown in the report under section 173, Cr.P.C. were summoned as C.Ws. excluding Rab Nawaz and Maqbool. The statements of C.Ws. were also recorded and the case was fixed for recording statement of accused and the defence evident : on 4‑9‑1994. However, the case was adjourned till 17‑10‑1994 for various reasons including non‑availability of the learned counsel for the parties. On the aforesaid date an application was moved for summoning of senior police officers in defence. The case was again adjourned for various reasons for the disposal of the aforesaid application, which was ultimately dismissed on 19‑4‑1995. The case was, thereafter fixed for the statement of the accused. A revision petition was filed against the dismissal of the aforesaid application, which is admittedly still pending in this Court.

2. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that since two years have elapsed but the trial has not yet concluded, therefore, the petitioner is entitled to bail in view of the provisions contained in para.(b) of the 3rd proviso of section 497, Cr.P.C. In this respect it was contended that there was no overt act or omission on the part of the accused/petitioner to disentitle him to bail. In this regard it was alleged that mere fact that a revision petition was filed by the petitioner to challenge the order of trial Court would not amount to any overt act or omission on the part of the petitioner to disentitle him to the concession of bail.

3. The learned counsel for the complainant contended that the filing of a revision petition was a legal remedy available to the petitioner, but the same would be an act on his part to which the delay can be attributed particularly when he did not hotly pursue the same to get a decision on the points raised therein. On the contrary the proceedings in the trial Court were stayed oh 8‑5‑1995 while the revision petition was admitted by this Court.

4. After considering the foregoing facts, it can be said that the delay in the disposal of the case can be partly attributed to the petitioner because on a number of dates the adjournments took place at his instance and ultimately on account of the filing of revision petition in which the proceedings were stayed, resulting into delay of the disposal of the case. Reference to 1996 MLD 118, Lahore can be safely made. As such the petitioner is not entitled to the benefit of statutory ground provided in section 497, Cr.P.C. This bail petition is therefore, dismissed.

5. It will be just and fair that the revision petition be heard and disposed of expeditiously in order to avoid further delay in the disposal of the main case. It is, therefore, directed that the revision petition shall be fixed for hearing during the next month i.e. October, 1996. N.H.Q./A‑81/L Bail refused.