SAKHI REHMAT Versus State

ORDER

ALI BAIG, J.--- Through the instant petition filed under section 497, Cr.P.C., the petitioner namely Sakhi Rehmat son of Sheli Baig has sought post-arrest bail in case FIR No. 31/2018 dated 11.11.2018 registered under sections 377, 377-B, 341/511, P.P.C. at Police Station Singul Tehsil Punial.

2. Succinctly prosecution story as narrated in the FIR is that on 11.11.2018, at 5:40 p.m. the nephew of the complainant namely Safwan son of Shahzaman aged about 08 years was coming back to his house from City Chowk Bazar Sherqillah, when he reached near Aga Khan Higher Secondary School Sherqillah, the petitioner/accused caught hold the victim and removed his shalwar/trousers and was attempting to commit sodomy/un natural offence upon the victim. On hue and cry of the victim child two persons namely Himat Sharif and Mohammad Zia rushed to the place of occurrence. On seeing the above named persons the petitioner/accused decamped from the place of occurrence.

3. It is pertinent to mention here that earlier bail petition of the present petitioner was dismissed by this Court on merit with the direction to the trial court to conclude the trial of accused/petitioner within six months of the passing of that bail order failing which the petitioner would be at liberty to file fresh bail petition in the trial Court, which was filed in the trial Court by the petitioner. The learned trial Court vide bail order dated 12.5.2020 has dismissed bail petition of the petitioner, hence, this petitioner.

4. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner contended that this Court while disposing of the bail petition of the petitioner this Court had directed the trial Court to conclude trial of the case of the petitioner within six months of the passing of bail order but despite lapse of seven months the trial Court and prosecution have failed to conclude the case of the petitioner within the given time, hence the petitioner is entitled for concession of bail. The learned counsel for the petitioner further argued that under third proviso of section 497(1), Cr.P.C., the Court shall except where it is of the opinion that delay in the trial of the case has been occasioned by an act or omission of the accused or another person acting on his behalf, direct that the accused shall be released on bail:-

(a) Who being accused of any occurrence not punishable with death has been detained for such offence for a continuous period exceeding one year or where trial for such offence has not concluded, thus the petitioner is entitled for concession of bail under the above said provisions of Cr.P.C, as the petitioner is behind the bars for last more than 1 and half years.

5. Conversely the learned Dy. A.G. opposed this petition contending that due to pandemic situation and lockdown, the trial of prosecution case could not be concluded.

6. Pro and contra arguments of the learned counsel for the parties heard and record perused.

7. Admittedly this Court vide bail order dated 11.11.2019 had directed the trial Court to conclude trial of the case within 6 months of the passing of said bail order but the learned trial Court failed to comply the direction of this Court despite lapse of about seven months of the passing of above order on the pretext that due to lock down and Pandemic situation, the trial of accused could not be concluded. In this connection it is observed that the Courts of G.B. remained closed for only about one month due to lockdown on account of pandemic Corona Virus.

9. From perusal of order sheets of trial Court dated 19.11.2019, 05.12.2019, 19.02.2020, 2.3.2020, 17.3.2020, 11.4.2020, and 16.5.2020 it appears that the P.Ws were absent. Only one adjournment was sought on behalf of the petitioner as his counsel was not appeared before trial Court on 19.2.2020.

9. Perusal of record would show that the accused/petitioner was arrested on 11.11.2018 and since then he is in judicial custody and despite framing of charge on 4.5.2019 as yet proceedings have not been concluded nor there is any reasonable probability of concluding trial in near future.

10. For what has been discussed above, this bail petition is allowed. Consequently the petitioner is admitted to post arrest bail subject to his furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs. 200,000/- (Rupees two lac only) with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of trial Court.

11. Before parting with this order it is observed that usually, the subordinate Courts do not bother to comply with the directions/orders of this Court and directions are taken lightly, therefore all subordinate Courts are once again directed to comply/implement directions of this Court in future in letter and spirit failing which disciplinary action would be initiated against the delinquent judicial officers. Copy of this order be forwarded to all District and Sessions Judges and Additional District and Sessions Judges for their information and compliance in future. The District and Sessions Judges of Gilgit-Baltistan shall also circulate this order to their subordinate Senior Civil Judges and Civil Judge/Judicial Magistrate for information and compliance.

12. Bail Allowed. File.

SA/109/GB Bail granted.