HASSAN MANSOOR RAZA BUTT Versus State
ORDER
SHAHID HAMEED DAR, J .---This is the 4th post arrest bail application on the trot, on behalf of the petitioner, the first one (Crl. Misc. No.646-B/2013) was dismissed on merits on 27.06.2013, whereafter he approached the Honourable Supreme Court of Pakistan through Crl. Petition No.835-L of 2013, which was disposed of on 25.11.2013. His second application (Crl. Misc. No.2235-B/2014) on the subject was dismissed on 11.04.2014, again on merits. His subsequent quest for seeking the desired relief met with a failure, when the apex court dismissed Crl. Petition No.251 of 2014 on 22.07.2014. His third endeavour through Crl. Misc.No.505-B/2015, which was based on the statutory ground of delay in conclusion of his trial, also bore no fruit as it was dismissed by this court on 05.11.2015 with a direction for the learned trial court to conclude his trial within two months, might it be on day to day basis.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has admitted that no fresh ground in strict legal sense is available to the petitioner, except for the one, that his trial has not concluded as yet, despite a categorical direction of two months, issued by this court on 05.11.2015, when it dismissed his last post arrest bail application (supra).
3. All the grounds available to the petitioner on merits or on the statutory ground of delay in conclusion of his trial already stood consumed, as is manifest from the opening paragraph hereof. The earlier direction of two months for concluding the petitioner's trial elapsed long before, but it has not concluded as yet, which has to be critically looked at and made a prospective obligation that no such direction ever went waste or uncared-for. Learned trial court must have adopted and taken to every possible legal measure to translate the direction-given into a reality, but it was not to be for a variety of reasons, one being scantiness of the length thereof. The only argument being agitated herein cannot be considered a fresh ground to base this application on. It was more of a reminder to the learned trial court that the petitioner's anxiety, as to timely/expeditious conclusion of his trial be brought to an end without unnecessary delays and that's all, when the earlier direction was issued. Such a vainly direction cannot be considered a fresh ground in favour of the accused, nor could it eclipse the effectiveness of previously recorded observations of this court, whereby the petitioner's earlier bail-pleas had been turned down. It may, however, necessitate a meaningful fresh direction to be given to the learned trial court for concluding the impending trial as swiftly as possible, instead of giving a positive nod to the bail plea of the accused.
4. This application is therefore dismissed in limine, with the direction that the learned trial court shall accelerate the proceedings of the petitioner's trial, so as to conclude it within five months from the date of communication of this order, may it be on day-to-day basis. Learned Sessions Judge Nanakana Sahib shall monitor the compliance of the direction-given and submit a report, once the trial is concluded.
WA/H-21/L Bail declined.