PARVEEN AKHTAR Versus RAFIQUE ALAM BUTT

ORDER

The petitioner seeks bail in a case registered against him and Muhammad Aslam vide F.I.R. No.22, dated 20-1-1992 for an offence under section 302/34, P.P.C. at Police Station Sadar Kamuki. The petitioner is alleged to have killed Majid Riaz, a three years old son of Muhammad Riaz complainant with Chhuri.

2. The motive stated in the F.I.R. is that the petitioner alongwith his uncle Muhammad Aslam came to the complainant and asked for the hand of his sister but he refused to accept his proposal.

3. The petitioner's learned counsel strenuously urged that the case required further probe and enquiry because Muhammad Aslam co-accused had been found to be innocent during investigation. He further submitted that the petitioner was alleged to have killed the child with a Chhuri but actually he had a lacerated wound on his abdomen. He next submitted that Ghulam Rasool, P.W., had given the time of occurrence as 11 a.m. whereas Bashir Ahmad, P.W. gave the time as 3 p.m. Lastly, he submitted that the petitioner deserved bail on the ground of delay in the commencement of trial because he is behind the bars for the last more than two years. In this connection, he placed reliance upon the case reported as Khalid v. State 1994 P Cr. L J 12. On the other hand, the learned State counsel submitted that prima facie, the petitioner was connected with the commission of offence. He was seen by the eye-witnesses taking the deceased into the sugarcane field from where his dead body was recovered.

4. I refrain from discussing the merits of the case in detail at this stage, lest it might cause prejudice to either party at the trial. Suffice it to say that prima facie, the petitioner had a motive against the complainant. He was seen by both the eye-witnesses taking Majid Riaz (deceased) to the sugarcane field where he (Majid Riaz) was found to be dead. True, bail can be allowed on the A ground of inordinate delay as held in the case cited above, notwithstanding, deletion of 3rd and 4th provisos to section 497, Cr.P.C. However, keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the present case, I am not inclined to allow k bail to the petitioner, who is alleged to have killed an innocent child of three years. Therefore, his bail petition is dismissed.

5. The learned Sessions Judge is directed to fix the case for trial within a fortnight. The trial Court shall make every effort to conclude the trial expeditiously preferably within a period of four months. If the trial is not concluded within said period without fault on the part of the petitioner; he shall be at liberty to file a fresh petition for bail on the ground of delay before this Court. The petition is dismissed with the above direction/observation.

N.H.Q./Z-111/L Bail refused.