SHAUKAT Versus THE STATE

ORDER

Shaukat petitioner has applied for bail under section 497 (1) (b), Cr. P. C. on the ground that he was arrested on 15-11-1982 but the trial has not commenced as yet what to talk of its conclusion.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that in all five accused stand challaned in this case and except the petitioner all others have been released on bail on various grounds. Liaquat Ali co-accused was allowed bail by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sheikhupura on 26-11-1984 on the ground of delay in the conclusion of trial. Learned counsel states that the petitioner has been continuously in detention since 15-11-1982 and has not in any manner directly or indirectly contributed to the delay in the conclusion of the trial.

Learned counsel for the State submits that according to the record the Crimes Branch bad concluded the investigation on 30-4-1984 and directed that the challan be put in Court against the accused but it has not been presented to the Court as yet and is lying in the prosecution branch; Sheikhupura.

3. Section 173, Cr. P. C. provides that the investigation shall be completed without unnecessary delay and as soon as it is completed, the Officer Incharge of the Police Station shall forward his report to the Magistrate empowered to take cognizance of the offence for proceeding. further in the matter. The prosecution branch is required to see that the investigation has been conducted on the right lines and the challan papers) are in order. This job should not ordinarily take more than a ? few ? days but experience has shown otherwise. Challan papers continue to lie in the prosecution Branch for indefinite period without any .genuine cause.

It is a matter of common observation that more time is consumed by the police agencies in the completion of investigations and bringing the offenders before the Courts than in the disposal of the cases by the trial Courts. In the instant case, the challan was sent to the prosecution branch on 25-10-1984 but till this date they have not sent it to the Court. This slackening attitude of their's needs to be strictly viewed.

4. As the delay in the commencement, completion or conclusion of trial is not in any way attributable to the petitioner, I see no reason to B deny him the concession of bail provided by law (section 497(1)(b), Cr.P.C.). Accordingly, I admit him to bail in the sum of Rs. 20,000 with two sureties in the like amount to the satisfaction of A. C. Ferozewala.

Copy of the order be sent to the I.-G. Police Punjab for looking into the matter and issuing general directions to' the prosecution branch to be prompt and active in the performance of their duties and not to C sit idly over the challans and contribute to the delay in the dispensation of justice.

M. Z. M. ??????????????????? ????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Order accordingly.