FASIH ULLAH Versus State
ORDER
ALI BAQAR NAJAFI, J.--- The petitioner seeks post arrest bail in case FIR No.219 of 2016 dated 04.10.2016 offences under sections 302/34, P.P.C. registered at Police Station Pai Khel, District Mianwali on the allegation that on the day of occurrence, the complainant along with Habib Ullah and Sher Muhammad was in his house when Fasih Ullah armed with .12 bore gun, Mansoor Aqash armed with .30 bore pistol and Muhammad Younas armed with 7MM rifle reached there. Fasih Ullah raised lalkara to teach a lesson to Sher Muhammad, the father of the complainant for forbidding the use of street whereupon he with the intention to kill him made a straight fire on Sher Muhammad hitting on his chest and the neck. Thereafter, Muhammad Younas and Mansoor Aqash started aerial firing with their firearm weapons and left the place of occurrence. Sher Muhammad fell down and died on the spot. Hence the FIR.
2. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Deputy Prosecutor General assisted by the learned counsel for the complainant and perusing the file, it is straightaway observed that the petitioner is specifically named in the FIR with the specific role of making fatal fire shot which has been declared as injuries Nos.4 and 6 as per the autopsy report of the deceased Sher Muhammad. The petitioner has also led to the recovery of .12 bore gun on 27.11.2016 along with the live cartridges. The prosecution witnesses in their statements under section 161, Cr.P.C. remained consistent, therefore, prima facie the case of the petitioner for the grant of post arrest bail on merits is not made out.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that ever since his arrest on 24.11.2016, he has spent more than 3-1/2 years behind the bars without the conclusion of the trial which fact initially struck to the mind of this Court, so as to assess the conduct of the petitioner, therefore, the entire interim orders were perused and it was found that after his arrest on 24.11.2016 the charge was framed on 03.07.2017 and Umar Farooq/PW1, Saif Ullah/PW2 and Muhammad Shafique/PW4 appeared on 18.10.2017 whereas Dr. Zeeshan Hassan/PW3 had appeared on 21.11.2017 and recorded their examination-in-chief. Later the statements of PW5 and PW6 were also recorded on 18.02.2019. The file further reflects that on many occasions the petitioner sought adjournment on the plea that his defence counsel was not available. On many occasions the court also did not function because of either unavailability of the Presiding Officer or because of the Bar,strikes on which the joint requests for adjournments were made by both the counsels. A significant apparent fact is that the accused had already decided not to cooperate with the court because ever since the appearance of the prosecution witnesses on numerous occasions he had been seeking adjournments. If the adjournments from the date of his arrest to 24.11.2018 are calculated, 17 adjournments go to his share whereas 9 adjournments were sought from the prosecution side and on 5 occasions joint requests were made by both the sides. Notwithstanding the mathematical calculation of the adjournments sought by the petitioner, the conduct of the petitioner shows a non-cooperative attitude. Obviously, when the prosecution witnesses have been continuously appearing and the learned Presiding Officer was functioning in the court, the learned counsel for the petitioner could have easily cross-examined the prosecution witnesses long ago, therefore, I am of the view that keeping in view the conduct of the petitioner he is not entitled for the grant of post arrest bail on the ground of delay in conclusion of the trial.
4. For the above stated reasons, this petition has been found meritless and is, therefore, dismissed. However, the trial court is directed to conclude the trial expeditiously and preferably within a period of 6 months from the receipt of the certified copy of this order.
SA/F-12/L Bail declined.