ALI MURAD Versus THE STATE

ORDER

The earlier bail application of the applicants, was dismissed as withdrawn, by this Court vide order dated 7‑4‑2003. Considering the case of the applicants one of hardships, as they were then in custody without trial for more than two and a half years, the case against the applicants was withdrawn from the file of the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ratodero and was transferred to the Court of learned IInd Additional Sessions Judge, Larkana for expeditious disposal. In the above referred order, specific directions were issued to the learned transferee Court to examine the material witnesses within a period of 30 days from the receipt of the R and Ps. The Court received the R and Ps within one week on 14‑4‑2003. The learned Presiding Judge is stated to have proceeded on medical leave for one month and returned on 22‑5‑2003. He has failed to examine any witness till today.

2. It is contended on behalf of the applicants that the learned trial Court, especially, after 22‑5‑2003, if not earlier, as the incharge Court too was competent to ensure attendance of P.Ws., should have issued coercive process against the P.Ws. in order to make compliance of this Court's order. The learned counsel further contended that stereotyped orders are passed on the dates of hearing and the same can be evidenced from the case diaries contained in the file. It was further argued that the applicants are in continuous custody without trial for the three years less six weeks, as they were arrested on 30th August, 2000. Reliance was placed upon 2003 YLR 2029.

3. Muhammad Bachal Tonyo, learned Additional A.‑G. appearing for the State conceding to the ball plea submitted that the learned trial Court does not appear to have taken any special efforts in procuring the attendance of the P.Ws. and if coercive process of bailable warrants or non‑bailable warrants had been issued, some material progress possibly would have been made within the due date.

4. The above resume of facts would show that the learned trial Court while having the case in hand for three months failed to examine a single witness. Even if the one month medical leave of the learned Presiding Judge be deducted, he had two months time with him to meet the requirements of the Court order. Only purpose of transferring the case, seems to be the expeditious trial of the applicants, which could have been held even on day to day basis. The trial Court ought not to have adjourned the case to longer dates There is nothing in the case diaries to suggest that the learned trial Court dealt with the case on priority basis, which it was to do, in view of the directions given to it. There is no law prohibiting trial on day to day basis. The case diaries relating to the year 2003 do not show the nature of process being issued to the P.Ws. The order is just "Repeat process".

5. The superior Courts orders containing directions should never be taken to have been passed in routine. The conduct or the learned trial Judge, upon perusal of the case diaries is but regrettable. The learned Addl. A.‑G. has rightly submitted that the applicants cannot be punished for slackness which has not occurred due to them.

6. Almost in similar circumstances bail was granted by me to the accused in the above referred case. Resultantly, bail is granted to both the applicants namely Ali Murad and Ghulam Sarwar subject to their furnishing sureties in the sum of Rs. two lacs each and PR bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Additional Registrar of this Court.

H.B.T./A‑476/K ????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Bail granted.