2002 P Cr (PLP)

Masood A, Noorani; Addl. A.‑G. (on Court's Notice). Muhammad Azim Panhwar, State Counsel The present applicant is seeking bail in Crime No.8 of 1999 registered with Police Station Town Mirpur Khas under section 302, P.P.C. He moved bail application before the trial Court on the ground of statutory delay but without success. Mr. Qurban Ali Chohan learned counsel for the applicant has contended that the present applicant was arrested on 16‑2‑1999 and since then the case has not proceeded. According to him even charge has not been framed and he has drawn our attention on the case diary which is available on page 83 He has further argued that the delay cannot be attributed to the present accused. He is neither dangerous nor desperate or hardened and from where the trial Court has gathered that the present applicant is dangerous, hardened and desperate is lacking in the matter. On the other hand, Mr. Muhammad Azim Panhwar, State Counsel has opposed to the grant of bail on the ground of statutory delay. He has also read the case diaries and has attempted to establish that the charge was not framed on account of absence of the defence counsel. He has trade a faint attempt to persuade us that the charge cannot be framed in the absence of defence counsel. He is not duly armed with any relevant law. We have heard the arguments of learned counsel for the parties at length. We have also examined the case diaries produced by the learned counsel for the applicant. We have also gone through the impugned order. We have seen carefully the case diaries, the case was being adjourned for want of not only framing the charge but so also for want of A Ballistic Expert Report and till today the same has not been received by the prosecution. We have also gone through section 5‑A, Part 11 of Suppression of Terrorist Activities (Special Act), 1975 wherein it has been held that a Special Court shall not adjourn any trial for any purpose unless such adjournment in his opinion is necessary in the interest of justice and no adjourned shall be granted for more than 2 days. We are quite conscious in dealing with the matter pertaining to S.T.A. and according to aforementioned section it is duty of the trial Court to proceed with the case day to day except in special circumstances. We have found that there is deliberate delay on the part of the prosecution and such delay has 'not been explained by the prosecution. Reference may be made to the case of Muhammad Yousif v. The State reported in 2000 SCMR 79/80 wherein the Honourable Supreme Court has granted bail to the accused on the ground of statutory delay who .was alleged .to have used his service rifle to cause death of Azhar Ali and Khuda Bux and injury to Ghulam Farid. It has been further observed by the Honourable Supreme Court that although the act of the accused was condemnable but bail was granted to him as his case fell within the exceptions to the third proviso of section 497, Cr.P.C. The petition was converted into an appeal and the accused was admitted to bail by the Honourable Supreme Court. In the instant case the applicant is alleged to have killed one of the deceased. His act may be condemnable in view of the authority of the Honourable Supreme Court and yet his case is falling within the exceptions to the third proviso to section 497, Cr.P.C. We are of the considered view that the present applicant has good prima facie case fot grant of bail on the ground of statutory delay. There is no lapse on the part o1' the present applicant towards the delay Accordingly he is granted bail In the sum of Rs.5,00.000 and P.R. Bond ` in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court N.H.Q./M‑25/K? Bail granted. ‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑