TAJ ALIAS TAJU AND ANOTHER Versus THE STATE

ORDER

This may be read in continuation of my order, dated 20‑1‑1918.

2. Learned State counsel has produced a list showing registration of fifteen cases against Taj alias Taju petitioner for various offences. He states that there is no other case against Muhammad Sharif petitioner. In that view of the matter, the learned counsel for the petitioners does not press the petition on behalf of Taj petitions, and the same is dismissed in as far as it relates to him.

3. The allegation against Sharif petitioner was that on the night between 6/7‑11‑1986 he alongwith co‑accused Taj alias Taju forcibly abducted Mst. Mumtaz Bibi from her house and during the course gave her a Danda blow. The accused were apprehended at a distance of one and a half squares from the house of the complainant. There is no other case against Sharif petitioner and he is in jail for a continuous period exceeding one year. I, therefore, admit him to bail in the sum of Rs.25,000 with two sureties in ‑the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners has pointed out that one case was registered as far back as 7‑11‑1987 and so far not a single witness has been examined. The learned trial Magistrate is directed to expedite the proceedings and dispose of the case within f)pr months.

M.Y.H./T‑35/ L Petition partly allowed.