THE STATE Versus UMAR DRAZ

GHULAM MUJADDID MIRZA, C.J. ‑‑In the month of June 1970, four persons were murdered. These were Khizar, Nazar, Jan Muhammad and Alamsher. Report about the incident was lodged by Muhammad Iqbal at Police Station Renala Khurd.

2. According to the first informant, Umar Draz, Umar Hayat, Khizar Hayat, Siparas Khan and Ghulam Hussain were the murderers. All five of them were hauld up. They were tried by the Additional Sessions Judge, Sahiwal, who by judgment, dated 27‑1‑1976 acquitted all of them. State filed appeal against acquittal. It came up for hearing before a D.B. of this Court who issued notice and non‑bailable warrants to the acquitted accused. On coming to know of this they applied for bail with the result that before execution of non‑bailable warrants they were bailed out. The appeal was ultimately decided on 13‑7‑1980. The Bench found Umar Draz guilty. He was sentenced to death. Appeal against others was dismissed. Umar Draz appealed to the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan. The appeal was decided on 11‑10‑1984. The judgment of the High Court was set aside. Case was remanded. Question of bail was left to the discretion of the High Court. But the Supreme Court ordered Umar Draz to be brought out of death cell and kept in jail like other under‑trial prisoners. After remand, Umar Draz moved this Court for bail. His first application was dismissed on 3‑3‑1986. Nevertheless it was ordered that the appeal be set down for hearing within two months. The appeal was not heard according to the direction of the High Court. Umar Draz repeated his request for bail. The second application was dismissed on 12‑4‑1987.

3. This is the third application for bail. We do not think it is necessary to go into the merits of this case. The sole ground urged by Mr. Batalvi learned counsel for the petitioner was that the petitioner had been behind the bars for more than a decade. He is still in jail. The other respondents are on bail. Learned counsel submitted that as a matter of fact this is a hard case. The petitioner spent more time behind the bars than outside.

4. We have also heard the A.A.‑G.

5. We are of the view that on the ground of inordinate delay in disposal of this appeal which is not on account of any fault of the petitioner, he deserves to be enlarged on bail. We, therefore, admit him to bail in the sum of Rs.50,000 with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of A.C., Sargodha.

S. A./5‑166/L Bail allowed.