BASHIR BARKAT Versus State

ORDER

ABDUL SAMI KHAN, J.--- Through this petition under section 497, Cr.P.C. the petitioner Bashir Barkat has sought bail after arrest in case FIR No.11/2013 dated 07.01.2013 under sections 302, 324, 109, P.P.C., registered at Police Station Nishtar Colony, District Lahore.

2. The arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties have been heard and the record of this case has also been perused with their able assistance. The petitioner is specifically nominated in the FIR with specific role of causing injuries to deceased as well as to injured P.Ws with his pistol. The role attributed to the petitioner is also born out from postmortem examination of the deceased and MLC of injured. It is a day time occurrence. Parties are known to each other hence, there is no chance of mistaken identity of the petitioner. During investigation weapon of offence has been recovered from the petitioner. He is found guilty during the investigation. There are statements of P.Ws recorded under section 161, Cr.P.C. including, the injured P.Ws involving the present petitioner in this occurrence. There is ample evidence against the petitioner on the file in this case. Petitioner is the sole accused who has caused multiple firearm injuries to the deceased as well as to both the ladies. Hence, no ground for grant of bail on merits.

3. As far as the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner was arrested in this case on 24.01.2013 and now almost three years have passed, the trial of the case has not been concluded and the petitioner deserves the concession of bail on the ground of statutory delay in the conclusion of trial. In this regard, I may observe here that perusal of the report of learned Trial Court reveals that in this case the statements of four P. Ws. including the complainant have been recorded and the eye-witnesses are continuously appearing before the learned Trial Court on number of dates of hearing but their statements could not be recorded on the request of accused/ petitioner due to non availability of his counsel, hence, no ground for bail is made out even on the ground of delay in conclusion of trial.

4. For what has been discussed above, this petition has got no force and the same is hereby dismissed.

5. However, it is clarified that the observation made hereinabove are tentative in nature and strictly confined to the disposal of this bail petition.

WA/B-19/L Bail refused.