IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH AT KARACHI

Criminal Bail Application No. 960 of 2017

Tauseef Riaz…………………..…………………...…………………..Applicant

Versus

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

Date of hearing and order : 11.07.2017

Mr. Muhammad Akber Khan, Advocate for applicant.

Mr. Ali Haider Saleem, A.P.G.

Ms. Samina Fazal, Advocate for complainant

O R D E R

Fahim Ahmed Siddiqui, J: This order shall dispose of the captioned bail application filed on behalf of the applicant, who is involved in Crime No. 641/2012 under Section 302 PPC lodged at PS, Jackson, Karachi. The applicant's case is pending before Additional Sessions Judge-VI, Karachi West for trial.

2. The allegations against the applicant are that he had murdered the sister of complainant by slitting her neck with a knife in his own house, and her dead body was recovered on an information given by his brother to the complainant party.

3. In support of the instant bail application, the learned counsel for the applicant has argued the matter at length. He submits that the applicant is innocent and he has been falsely implicated in this case. He submits that the applicant is not involved or nominated in the FIR but even then, he was shown absconder which is contrary to the facts narrated in the FIR. He points out that the applicant has surrendered himself before the Court, as such he cannot be considered as an absconder. He also points out that the previous investigation officer was retired as such a new investigation officer was examined, who has not conducted the initial investigation of the case. He submits that the previous bail application was disposed of with the directions to complete the trial within a period of two months, but thereafter only investigation officer SIP Mokhtar was examined. He relies on 1999 SCMR 2147, PLD 2011 Supreme Court 147 and 2017 SCMR 1194.

4. As against the above, the learned counsel for the complainant submits that the entire case is almost complete and the applicant himself caused delay in trial. She submits that the deceased was her real sister and the brother of complainant informed her about the murder caused by the applicant. She points out that after directions, the applicant's counsel has sought 10 more adjournments while the investigation officer remained in attendance. She submits that in depositions so far recorded, the witnesses fully implicated the applicant as such he is not entitled for a relief of bail. She provides the list of adjournments sought on behalf of the applicant. She submits that all the citations relied by the learned counsel for the applicant are distinguishing to the facts and circumstances of the case in hand.

5. The learned APG, after adopting the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the complainant, adds that the trial is almost complete and at this stage, it will not be appropriate to release the applicant on bail especially when he remained absconder for a considerable period of time. He submits that previously the trial was delayed for which the prosecution is not responsible, but the responsibility goes to the applicant. He further submits that the case is being delayed because the court became vacant due to transfer of the Presiding Officer.

6. I have heard the arguments advanced and have gone through the material placed before me. In the instant case, the bail application of the applicant was earlier declined by this court while directing the trial court to conclude the trial within a period of two months. It is a fact that at the time of disposal of previous bail application by this Court vide order dated 01-07-2016, a direction was given to the trial court for disposal of the case within two months but the same was not complied with. In this respect, the learned counsel for the complainant has supplied a list of dates of hearing when the case was fixed for trial, but the same was adjourned at the request of the counsel for the applicant. The diaries available in the record, verify such contention of the learned counsel for the complainant. The trial was adjourned on 04-10-2016, 12-11-1216, 18-11-2016, 19-11-2016, 19-11-2016, 06-12-2016, 18-02-2017, 25-03-2017, 01-04-2017, 23-07-2017 and 27-08-2017. The responsibility of adjournments on these dates of hearing majorly goes to the applicant, which shows that the delay in trial cannot be attributed to the prosecution. The prosecution evidence is almost at finality, which means that the trial has come on the verge of completion. The applicant remained fugitives to law and trial after submission of final report under Section 512 CrPC, as such, in the present circumstances when the case is at the brink of the end, the instant bail plea cannot be considered. However, presently the trial court has fallen vacant, which may further hamper the pace of the trial, it is therefore directed that the In-charge Judge of the trial court should proceed with this case on priority basis, considering the directions given in the earlier order, and dispose of the same as soon as possible. With these observations, the instant bail application is dismissed.

The above are the reasons of my short order dated 11-07-2017

J U D G E