MANZOOR AHMAD KHAN ALIAS NADEEM KHAN Versus THE STATE

ORDER

A case under Article 3/4 of the Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order, 1979, read with section 14 of the Dangerous Drugs Act was registered against the petitioner for an occurrence, which took place at about 5-30 p.m. on 19-4-1995 as one kilogram of heroin was recovered from his possession. The F.I.R. was registered on the same day at 5-45 p.m. at the report of Muhammad Aslam Field Investigating Officer, Police Station P.N.C.B., Multan.

2. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the provision's of the Dangerous Drugs Act were not attracted to the facts of this case. The main emphasis was however laid by the learned counsel for the petitioner on the delay, which has occurred in concluding the trial. In this respect it was contended that the petitioner had earned statutory right under third proviso to section 497(1), Cr.P.C. In this connection it was contended that the petitioner was arrested on 19-4-1995 and since then he was behind the bars and that the delay in the trial could not in any way be attributed to the petitioner. Reliance was placed on Saleh Muhammad v. The State and another 1983 SCMR 341 to show that the petitioner earned a valuable right to be released on bail if one year had elapsed after his arrest and trial could not be concluded. In this regard it was further submitted that the bail to an accused could not be denied under the discretionary power of the Court if he had earned statutory right to be enlarged on bail.

3. The bail was opposed on the ground that the trial has started and its conclusion is within sight because one prosecution witness has already been examined and the rest of the evidence is to be examined on 24-10-1996, which has been fixed as a date of hearing in the trial Court. It was, therefore, contended that the petitioner cannot insist for bail even on statutory ground. Reliance was placed on Muhammad Ismail v. Muhammad. Rafique and another PLD 1989 SC 585 and Haji Muhammad Siddique and others v. The State PLD 1994 SC 93,

4. I have considered the arguments addressed at the Bar from both sides. I have also gone through the record of the learned trial Court, which shows that one prosecution witness was examined on 3-4-1996 whereas the remaining witnesses have been summoned for 24-10-1996 after issuing the show-cause notice to the process-server for not effecting service upon the witnesses. It. therefore, follows that the trial has not only commenced but it is likely to be concluded in the near future. In such a situation it will not be proper to comment on the merits of the case to release the petitioner on bail. The petition is therefore dismissed with the direction that the trial in this case shall be concluded within one month from today failing which the petitioner may renew his request for bail to the Court below. It is further directed that the learned trial Magistrate shall intimate the Deputy Registrar (Judicial) of this Court after he decides the case within one month as observed above.

5. The file of the trial Court is given back to Muhammad Aslam Field Investigating Officer so that he may produce the same immediately before the trial Court to avoid adjournment of the case on the next date of hearing i.e. 24-10-1996.

N.H.Q./M-224/L Bail refused