DOST MUHAMMAD Versus STATE

ORDER

This petition for bail, on behalf of Dost Muhammad alias Dosa, Shahadat alias Sadda Atta Muhammad and Bashir who are being prosecuted in a case under section 302/307/148/149, P.P.C., is being pressed only on the ground of delay in completion of trial. The occurrence in this case took place at 2 p. m. on 14‑3‑1985. The F.I.R. was recorded at Police Station Chiniot District Jhang, on the same day at 5 p.m. The present petitioners were arrested on 10‑4‑1985. It is admitted at the Bar by learned counsel for the State that complete papers have not been filed in Court so far.

2. I have gone through the interim orders recorded by Courts in this case. It was placed before a Magistrate, First Class, Chiniot on 24‑6‑1986 who observed that the I.O. in his report under section 173, Cr.P.C. made no mention about Manzoor accused. It was an incomplete challan. The learned Magistrate observed that the accused are in lock‑up since one year and that the challan being incomplete could not be sent up to the Sessions Court for trial. He, therefore, directed the I.O. to explain the circumstances leading to delay and directed that the papers be placed before learned Sessions Judge, Jhang for further proceedings. An incomplete challan was again placed before the Magistrate on 26‑6‑1986. The accused were in judicial lock‑up and not produced before him. It was ordered that the case being triable by the Court of Sessions, be sent there. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jhang on 28‑6‑1986 directed the appearance of accused in his Court on 12‑7‑1986. On that date, the accused were present. The case was however, adjourned with a direction to the District Attorney to complete the papers within 7 days. No date was fixed for further proceedings. The case was then ordered to be transferred to the Court of Mr. Muhammad Naveed ul Zaffar Malik, Additional Sessions Judge, Jhang who on 2‑3‑1987 directed that the accused be produced in his Court on 9‑3‑1987. On that date, Atta Muhammad Shahadat, Bashir and Dost Muhammad were present in police custody while Nazir and Muhammad accused were present on bail. Learned State counsel stated that the papers of the case were with Crimes Branch who was holding further investigations in this case. He, therefore, requested for adjournment of the case to secure the relevant record from the Crimes Branch. The case was adjourned to 20‑4‑1987. The accused were present in Court. ASI Masud Ahmad for Crimes Branch was also present with record who stated that the investigation was nearly complete and that the papers will be sent after completion shortly. Nazir accused was not present in Court on that date. He was stated to be in lock‑up in District Jail, Jhang in connection with some other case. The learned Additional Sessions judge, therefore, adjourned the case to 28‑4‑1987 for presence of Nazir accused and for receipt of the papers from Crimes Branch. The accused were present in Court on 28‑4‑1987. The Public Prosecutor stated that the papers from Crimes Branch have not been received. The accused also requested the Court for some longer adjournment because they wanted to engage a counsel. The case was accordingly adjourned to 27‑5‑1987 with a direction to the Public Prosecutor to secure the papers from Crimes Branch Police so that copies of previous statements could be supplied to the accused. It was Holiday on 27‑5‑1987. The case was, therefore, placed before learned Additional Sessions Judge on 31‑5‑1987. The accused were present in Court. The Public Prosecutor stated that the papers were with the Crimes Branch and as such the copies could not be supplied to the accused. The case was, therefore, adjourned to 29‑6‑1987. On that date the learned Additional Sessions Judge noted, that the copies of the record to be given to the accused have repeatedly not been prepared". He, therefore, adjourned the case to 22‑7‑1987 for further proceedings. On that date the learned Additional Sessions Judge was on leave. The accused were present in Court. The file was placed before the learned Duty Additional Sessions Judge. The police papers were not available and the Public Prosecutor requested for some more time to secure the file from the Crimes Branch, Lahore so that the required copies could be supplied to the accused. The case was adjourned to 15‑9‑1987. The accused were present in Court on that date. It was observed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge in his interim order that the police file had so far been not received on account of which the copies could not be supplied to the accused. The case was adjourned to 29‑9‑1987, on the request of the learned Public Prosecutor. It is admitted by learned counsel for the State that so far the copies of previous statements have not been supplied to the accused on account of which the delay is being caused in commencement of the trial. The case was adjourned to 5‑10‑1987. It is not known to anyone as to what is the next date of hearing in this case.

A perusal of the interim orders recorded in this case clearly indicate the careless and negligent handling of the case by the police. It is generally observed that the cases remain under investigation for frivolous reasons with the Circle Officers or Senior Police Officers or with the Crimes Branch Police, Lahore for considerably long period which result in delay in filing of the challan and completion of the trial. The main investigation in nearly every case is completed within 4/5 days. The investigation by other Police Officer or the Crimes Branch is usually delayed for reasons best known to the police. The subsequent investigations are generally motivated which not only result in delay in filing of the challans in Court but also generate corruption. The case in hand is a classic example of police inefficiency, negligence and carelessness. It is high time that the Government takes serious note of the conduct of investigation in criminal cases by the police:

3. The delay in completion of the trial in the instant case is entirely attributable to the prosecution. The petitioners were arrested on 10‑4‑1985. They are in judicial lock‑up without any fault of their own for the last more than 2 years. I therefore, admit Dost Muhammad alias Dosa, Shahadat alias Sadda, Atta Muhammad and Bashir accused‑petitioners to bail on their furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs.50,000 (Rupees fifty thousand only) with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of A.C./Duty Magistrate, Chiniot.

S.G.D./D‑19/L Bail allowed.