SHAHBAZ and another vs THE STATE

ORDER

1. ' Intimation received from the office of Advocate-General Sindh shows that Mrs. Salima Nasiruddin is to represent the State in this case but she is also called absent and no intimation has been received from her.

2. ' In this case the bail application has be-e-n moved on the ground of statutory delay under proviso 3 to section 497(1), Cr.P.C. The present applicant is involved in a case registered with Police Station Dadu as Crime No,41/92 under sections 302/114, 34, P.P.C. The applicant Shahbaz is alleged to have killed Ghulam Rasool at the instigation of Shahbaz by firing two shots from his revolver. Applicant Pearl is also alleged to have fired in the air. Earlier bail application moved on behalf of the accused/applicant was dismissed on merits. However, subsequently, they moved this bail application on the ground of statutory delay. The counsel has also produced the case diaries alongwith bail application and the order passed by the trial Court, who after discussing every aspect of the case and also of the case-laws cited before him, has been pleased to dismiss the sail application.

3. ' I have heard Mr. Ashraf Laghari learned counsel for the applicant and perused the case diary.

4. There is no doubt that mostly the case was being adjourned from time to time by the trial Court on account of either non-production of accused or on account of non-production of police papers or non-production of the reports of the experts. All the above factors cumulatively show that the present case could not have been proceeded with as the material papers, including police papers and different reports from the experts were not available. Even the latest case diaries produced by the counsel for the applicant would show that accused were produced from the Central Prison, Hyderabad, and D.A. Was present and P.Ws. Were also present when the case was adjourned because the trial Judge was busy in dictating orders in some other bail applications. This is a case diary of 4-1-1995 whereas earlier case diary of 30-11-1994 shows that the accused were produced from the Prison, D.P.P. Was present but the defence attorney was not present, P.Ws. Were present.

5. This diary also shows that the direction was given to write a letter to S.H.O. To depute a special man to cause submission of the property and the reports of Chemical Examiner and Ballistic Expert. This shows that even on the date as late as 30-11-1994 the case property was not present in Court nor the reports of the Experts. In these circumstances it is obvious that the delay, can hardly be attributed to the accused.

6. ' The object of the Legislature in providing the relief under the 3rd B Proviso to section 497(1), Cr.P.C.

7. Is to give quick and speedy trial. A reference to the case of Amir v. The State reported in 1991 PCr.LJ page 531 would support this contention. The policy of law is to bring accused persons to trial as early as possible and if he is found guilty, he be punished and if found innocent, he be acquitted. It is thus to be seen as to what is the cumulative effect of adjournments being sought in the matter and the Court ought to go to the root cause of delay and not merely as to which of the petitioner is seeking adjournments. Even if the defence counsel had sought the adjournments yet if the case could not have proceeded for the reason to be attributed to the I prosecution, then the accused can hardly be made to suffer for such reasons.

8. ' In view of the above discussion, I grant this bail application and release the applicants on bail on their furnishing one surety in the sum of Rs,1,00,000 (Rupees one lac) each with P.R. Bond each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court.