MUHAMMAD ASLAM Versus STATE

ORDER

1. Muhammad Aslam, petitioner, is accused of having murdered his step mother and Dilshad, deceased, in his own house by firing at them with the help of his younger brother Khalid on 20‑6‑1986. During the investigation it was proved that the clothes of the two deceased were found stained with semen. According to the prosecution, Dilshad, deceased, was done to death after calling him on a false pretext to his place to confer on certain matters whereas the defence case is that both the deceased were found flagrante delicto and were done to death under grave and sudden provocation by the petitioner alone. It may be stated that I had allowed bail to Khalid, co‑accused of the petitioner, but declined the same relief to the petitioner on 18‑2‑1987 observing that even if the defence plea is accepted the case would fall under section 304, Part I, P.P.C. which is punishable with imprisonment for life and that the period for which the petitioner would remain in jail before his conviction that would be computed towards his substantive sentence of imprisonment under section 382‑B, Cr.P.C. The petitioner has repeated this bail petition on the ground that Haji Nazar Hussain, a relative of Mst. Maqsood Mai, deceased, has fled a private complaint regarding the same occurrence which is still at preliminary stage and for that reason proceedings in the challan case have been held up. It is, therefore, stated that commencement of the trial in the challan case is not in sight in the near future, as such the petitioner is entitled to the grant of bail under proviso 3, sub‑clause (b) of section 497, Cr.P.C., because the delay in the trial has not been occasioned by the petitioner. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State as well as learned counsel for the complainant have opposed the petition. 1n view of the fact that the trial has been held up in view of a private complaint filed by a relation of Mst. Maqsoodanl deceased and 2‑1/2 years since the arrest of the petitioner have already elapsed, therefore, I feel inclined in the above circumstances, to give benefit of proviso 3,1 sub‑clause (b) of section 497, Cr.P.C., to the petitioner. Consequently, this petition is allowed. The petitioner shall be released subject to his furnishing bail bond in the sum of Rupees fifty thousand (Rs.50,000 only) with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court.

2. H.B.T./M‑1134/LBail granted.