SHAH MUHAMMAD Versus STATE

ORDER

1. Applicants Shah Muhammad, Sobho alias Sobadar and Sudheer, who are arrested in Crime No.75/91 under sections 302, 147, 148, 149, 114, P.P.C. and 13-D of Arms Ordinance, have approached this Court for bail. The F.I.R. was lodged by one Khair Muhammad at Police Station Jagan Humayun, District Shikarpur on 26-9-1991. The first bail application moved on behalf of the applicants was rejected by the learned trial Court of Sessions Judge Shikarpur on 12-12-1991 and their bail application before this Court was dismisses as not pressed on 25-8-1993.

2. I have heard the learned counsel for the applicants and Mr. Zaheer Qureshi, Advocate appearing for the State. The latter has opposed this bail application. It is contended on behalf of the applicants that these three applicants were arrested on 5-10-1991 and a period of more than two years has lapsed but the trial is not concluded. It is also argued that the bail is not sought on the ground of statutory delay in conclusion of trial but the delay in the trial which is shocking and scandalous would entitle applicants to grant of bail. Learned Advocate has placed on record case diaries as well as the deposition of P.W. Ameer Bux who is a process-server, from the perusal of which it is apparent that the trial cannot be concluded even in the near future. It is also argued that such delay is not occasioned by any act or omission on the part of the applicants. The learned Advocate appearing for the State while opposing the bail application has argued that on merits applicants are not entitled to bail as they are attributed the effective role of causing murder of Muhammad Khan and Mst. Alarm. It is further pointed out that on 25-8-1993 the bail application moved on behalf of the applicants was dismissed as not pressed and therefore, since there is no fresh ground for grant of bail, the application merits no consideration and is liable to be dismissed

3. Applicants were arrested on 5-10-1991 and are in custody since then. The order of the learned Sessions Judge, Shikarpur, dated 26-5-1993 which is now impugned shows that the evidence in the case is not coming forth and that the trial Court is attempting to cause the attendance of the witnesses. The evidence of the process-server Ameer Bux further shows that there is no likelihood of service of process on the witnesses. The delay in conclusion of trial is not only shocking but also scandalous and it is not due to any act or omission on the part of the applicants that they are rotting in jail. In the case of Abdul Rehman v. The State 1978 P Cr. L J 589 it was observed that the accused are deemed to be innocent till convicted by competent Court and cannot to be allowed to rot in jail for indefinite period. It was also observed that no prospects existed of trial being held within a reasonable time and detention of accused for indefinite period was abuse of process of Court and bail was allowed.

4. In these circumstances I am of the clear view that applicants who are in jail for over two years are entitled to grant bail. The applicants shall be released on bail on furnishing one surety in the sum of Rs.1,00,000 (Rupees one lac) each with P.R. bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court.

5. N.H.Q./S-1064/K

6. Bail allowed.