IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH AT KARACHI

Criminal Bail Application No. 216 of 2017

Daniyal Ali Khan……….………...………………...…………………..Applicant

Versus

The State………….………………………………..……………….Respondent

Date of hearing and order : 26.07.2017

Mr. Azam Khan Awan, advocate for applicant

Mr. Zafar Ahmed Khan, Addl. P.G.

O R D E R

Fahim Ahmed Siddiqui, J: This order will dispose of the post arrest bail application of applicant Daniyal Ali Khan, who is facing trial for an offence reported by complainant Mohammed Firoz on 11-03-2014 at PS Defence, Karachi through FIR No. 137/2014 under Sections 302, 392, 397 & 34 PPC.

2. The allegations against the applicant are that he along with his co-accused had robbed cash amount and valuable articles from deceased Naveed Aslam (the son-in-law of complainant) and on his resistance caused injury to him by firearm weapon due to which he later on succumbed to death.

3. While pressing the instant bail application, the learned counsel for the applicant submits that the incident has taken place on 11-03-2014 while the applicant was arrested on 27-04-2014 and Final Report was submitted on 13-06-2014 but since then only three prosecution witnesses have been examined, as such the applicant is entitled to bail on a statutory delay ground. He submits that as per calendar of witnesses, the prosecution has to examine more than 20 witnesses, as such there is no chance of completion of trial in the near future.

4. The learned counsel for the complainant opposes the instant bail application by submitting that the applicant is involved in a heinous offence as such he is not entitled for any concession. He points out that the trial court has already declined the statutory right of bail to the applicant with a well reasoning order.

5. The learned Addl.P.G, after adopting the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the complainant, strongly opposes the instant bail application by submitting that the prosecution is ready to proceed with the case but the applicant is causing hindrances in the smooth flow of trial. He points out that the adjournments are sought from the applicant's side on 03-09-2015, 11-09-2015, 09-12-2015, 25-06-2016 and 02-08-2016.

6. I have heard the arguments advanced and pondered over the plea raised on behalf of the applicant. As the instant bail application is moved solely on the ground of statutory delay; therefore, I restrained myself to enter into a discussion on the merits of the case, besides, the bail application of the applicant on the merits has already been declined. They learned DPG has pointed out that during the last two years, the applicant has sought so many adjournments as such he himself had taken a considerable part in the delay of trial. It is worth mentioning that the learned trial Court, at the time of the dismissal of the bail application on statutory grounds, exhaustively described the reasons for refusing the bail in which certain other dates, including the above dates of hearing have been elaborately discussed and I am of the view that no further addition is required in the same.

7. The upshot of the above discussion is that the applicant is not entitled for concession of bail even on the statutory delay ground. These are the reasons for my short order dated 26-07-2017.

J U D G E