AKHTAR ABBAS vs THE STATE

ORDER

ANWARUL HAQ, C. J.-This petition seeks leave to appeal against the refusal of the Baluchistan High Court to allow bail to the petitioner during the pendency of the murder case against him.

2. The case was registered against the petitioner on the 14th of January, 1977, and he was arrested on the same day. Although he has been in custody for more than three years, the trial has not yet concluded. In view of the amendment made in section 497 of the Criminal Procedure Code, the petitioner had applied for bail on the ground that he had remained in custody for more than two years, and that the delay in the finalisation of the trial was not due to any act or omission on his part. This contention did not, however, find favour with the learned Judge in the High Court, who is also conducting the trial, for the reason that on several dates adjournment had been sought by the defence. The learned Judge specially mentioned eight occasions of this nature, namely the 15th of November, 1977, 10th of February, 1978, 10th of March, 1978, 18th of March, 1978, 13th of June, 1978, 7th April, 1979, 11th of June, 1979, and 11th of November, 1979.

3. It is contended by Mr. M. Bilal, appearing on behalf of the petitioner that, in the first place, the dates mentioned by the learned Judge in the High Court were not dates fixed for the hearing of the case; and, in the second place the adjournments granted on these dates did not consume more than a period of three months, and it follows, therefore, that the rest of the delay was caused by the prosecution. The learned. Counsel contends that in these circumstances the mandatory provisions of the amended section 497 of the Criminal Procedure Code should have been followed, and bail should have been allowed to the petitioner until the conclusion of the trial.

4. We regret we are not impressed by these submissions, as we find that! The requirements of the law is not fulfilled in this case, as at least on eight occasions adjournments were sought by the defence for one reason or the other. In such a case it does not appear to be the intention of the law to calculate the amount of delay caused by the defence. All that is necessary is to see whether the finalisation of the trial has, in any manner, been delayed by an act o omission on the part of the accused. In the present case, the delay is part attributable to the accused. The submission that the date in question w not fixed for the hearing of the case is not correct. On the contrary, it is clear A from the order sheet of the trial Court on these dates most of the witnesses were summoned and were present, but their examination bad to be postponed owing to the request made by the defence counsel.

5. In the circumstances, the High Court was right in exercising its discre--tion against the petitioner in the matter of the grant of bail. While dismissing the present petition, we would, however, like to observe that in view of the period of nearly three years that has already elapsed since the case was registered and the petitioner was arrested, it would be expedient if the High Court proceeds with the trial expeditiously on day to day basis.

With these observations, the petition is dismissed.