1976 PLP 413 (SCMR)

Date of hearing : 15th March 1974. The learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court, while dismissing the latest bail application of the petitioners has observed in his order dated the 12th of October 1973 that as specific roles had been assigned to the petitioners, and double murder was involved, it was not a fit case for bail, even though the trial had been delayed. Leave to appeal is sought on the ground that the petitioners have been held in custody for over four years for no fault of theirs, owing to the tactics of the complainant party in repeatedly filing revision petitions against the discharge of the accused person' named by then, in the private complaint. It is submitted that the High Court was in error in not giving due weight to this aspect of the matter. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioners as well as the learned Advocate appearing for the State we have decided to convert this petition into an appeal and we proceed to dispose it of accordingly. The learned counsel for the State has placed on the record a report submitted by the Superintendent of Police. Multan, stating that the trial of the petitioners was fixed before the Additional Sessions Judge, Multan on the 20th of January 1972, but on that date it was adjourned sine die owing to a request having been made by the defence counsel that the trial should be held alongwith that of the persons accused in the complaint case, should they also be committed for trial. A direction was also given to the Assistant Commissioner, Shuja Abid to expedite the proceedings in the complaint case. Since then the complaint case has not been finalized. Twice the accused persons named in the complaint were discharged by the Magistrate concerned, but on revision the case was remanded for further inquiry. According to the information supplied by the Superintendent of Police, the complaint is now nearing completion and only one witness remains to be examined. This report of the Superintendent of Police, Multan is dated the 17th of January 1974, but the inquire has not yet been completed. From the facts disclosed in the report submitted by the Superintendent of Police. Multan, as well as the arguments addressed at the bar it has become abundantly clear that the petitioner have beers held in custody for more than four years without trial: Nearly three years have elapsed since they were committed to the court of sessions. It is true that a request was made on their behalf that their trial should be hold simultaneity with that of the accused persons who may he committed for trial as a result of the private complaint as both matters related to the same incident. This was a proper request and was eighty acceded to for avoiding conflict of judgment, but even that was more than two ye‑its ago. The question whether in non‑bailable offences, bail ought to be allowed by reason of inordinate delay in the completion of the trial has come up repeatedly for consideration before this Court, and it has been laid down as a general rule that delay per se does rot entitle the accused to the grant of bail in non‑bailable offences particularly those punishable with death or transportation for life but at the same time it has been recognised that if in the particular circumstances of a given case delay amounts to an abuse of the process of the law, then such Daley would be a relevant ground for the grant of bail. It is .not necessary for s to mention the precedent cases, flow as most of them have been referred to by his, Lordship the Chief Justice while delivering judgment of the Court in Criminal Appeal No. X‑6 of 1974 (Abrar Muhammad and others v. The State), decided as recently as the 14th of March 1974. Judging, in the light of the principles stated above, the delay which has taken place in the trial of site appellants before us does appear to amount to an abuse of the process of the law, There is no averment that the appellants are in any manner responsible fur delaying their trial. The counsel of proceedings in the complaint case instituted by the opposite‑party against four other persons regarding the same incident aloes lend plausibility to the grievance made by the appellants that the complaint proceedings are in fact in the nature of tactics employed by the opposite‑party for prolonging the detention of he appellants al custody without trial. In the circumstance, the appellants are entitled to tae enlarged on bail. We would accordingly, accept this appeal and direct that the appellants be released on bail on furnishing security in the sum of Rs. 10,000 with two sureties in the like amount, in each case, to the satisfaction of the Assistant Commissioner, Shuja Abad. Before parting with this case, we would like to observe that the learned Magistrate, before whom the complaint case in question is pending, must make a determined effort to tile the proceedings expeditiously. Appeal accepted.