MUHAMMAD YASIR KHAN Versus State
ORDER
FAHIM AHMED SIDDIQUI, J.--- The applicants Muhammad Yasir Khan and Muhammad Rashid Khan are facing trial in a case registered against them vide FIR No. 144 of 2016 lodged at Police Station Mehmoodabad under sections 302, 34, P.P.C.. Previously, the similar plea of one of the applicants has been declined up to this forum and now they filed the instant application on the ground of delay in trial.
2. I have heard the arguments advanced from either side and perused the available record in the light of valued submissions made before me. After edifying myself from the arguments advanced and perusal of record, I have observed as under:
(a) The applicants are young men and brothers inter-se, who are nominated in the FIR. The allegations against the applicants are that on the day of incident, they quarrelled with the young boys of complaining party on some issue. Subsequently, at about 08:00 p.m. when some compromise negotiations were carried out regarding the incident. The applicants emerged at the scene of incident and fired upon the complaining party. Due to such firing, deceased Iftikhar received injuries. The injured was taken to hospital, where he expired during treatment.
(b) The applicants were arrested on 11-06-2016 and since their arrest, they have been continuously incarcerated and yet their trial has not been completed.
(c) Earlier, the bail plea of the applicant Yasir was declined and at time of disposal of his bail application vide order 16-01-2017, this Court issued directions to the trial Court to pace-up the trial and at least examined material witnesses within two months.
(d) In spite of earlier direction, the learned trial Court could not hastily proceed with the case due to various reasons. Ultimately, the learned trial court succeeded in framing charge against the applicants on 29-07-2016, thereafter the trial initiated against the applicants.
(e) Nevertheless, the learned trial Court has examined 06 (six) witnesses and 05 (five) more witnesses have to be examined.
(f) So far, all the private witnesses have been examined while the remaining witnesses are official witnesses, as such now there are least chances that the applicants will succeed in tampering with the prosecution evidence.
(g) Nothing on the record is available, which is sufficient to convince that the applicants are hardened, dangerous or desperate criminals, as such their release during trial will not be against the tranquility and peace of the society.
(h) The learned trial Court, in the impugned order, has given negative observation regarding the demeanor of the applicants. Such observations of the trial Court are contrary to settled law. The inference from the demeanor of the accused can only be possible if the accused opts for his examination as witness on oath.
3. In the existing position of affairs, I am of the view that a case of bail for the applicants have been made out on account of delay in trial. Resultantly, the applicants are admitted to bail subject to furnishing solvent surety in the sum of Rs.100,000/- (Rupees one lac only) each and PR bonds in the like amount up to the entire satisfaction of the learned trial Court, through my short order dated 16-09-2019; and these are the reasons for the same.
4. Before parting, I would like to further observe that if both or any of the applicants after getting bail fail to appear before the trial Court and the trial Court is satisfied that the applicant(s) have misused the concession of bail and became absconder(s) then the trial Court is fully authorised to take every action against the applicant(s) and their/his surety including cancellation of the bail without making a reference to this Court.
SA/M-183/Sindh Bail granted.