THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH, CIRCUIT COURT, LARKANA

Criminal Bail Application No.S-08 of 2022

Applicant:            Muhammad Ali.

Complainant:      None present for the Complainant.

Respondent:        The State

Through Mr. Aitbar Ali Bullo, Deputy Prosecutor General, Sindh.

Date of hearing:  28.11.2022

Date of Order:     28.11.2022

O R D E R

AMJAD ALI SAHITO, J.- Through instant Criminal Bail Application, applicant/accused Muhammad Ali Seehar son of Ghulam alias Koran Seehar,  seeks post arrest bail in Crime No. 13/2021, offence under Sections 337-A(ii), 147, 148, 149 & 504 P.P.C. of the Police Station Seehar. Prior to this, he filed such application, but the same was turned down by the Court of III-Additional Sessions Judge, Larkana vide Order dated 06.11.2021; hence he filed instant Criminal Bail Application.

2.                None present for the applicant, no intimation is furnished.  Progress report was called from the learned Trial, which reveals that five witnesses have been examined.  It appears that now the case of the prosecution is at the verge of conclusion before the learned Trial and in this regard relied is placed upon the case reported as 2011 SCMR 1332 (Rehmatullah v/s. The State and another).

3.                On the other hand learned counsel for the complainant and the learned D.P.G raised no objection in view of the above position.

4.                Heard and perused.

5.      Admittedly, case is at the verge of conclusion before the learned trial Court. In above cited case, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of Pakistan has held that in such circumstances the Court should not grant or cancel the bail when the trial is in progress and proper course in such situation would direct the trial Court to conclude the trial of the case within specified period.  For the sake of convenience relevant paras-3 and 4 of the said order passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of Pakistan in the case of Rehmatullah v/s. The State and another (supra) are reproduced hereunder:

“3.     Heard. The petitioner was granted bail on 21.11.2008, which was cancelled by the learned High Court on 19.03.2019, when according to the order itself the trial was at the verge of conclusion. Learned Additional Prosecutor General stated that now only one or two witnesses are yet to be recorded. The courts should not grant or cancel bail when the trial is in progress and proper course for the courts in such a situation would be to direct the learned trial Court to conclude the trial of the case within a specified period. Reference may be made to Haji Mian Abdul Rafique v/. Riaz-ud-Din and another (2008 SCMR 1206). We find that the impugned order was passed in violation of the law, therefore, we cannot subscribe to it. In view whereof, we are persuaded to allow this petition and direct the learned trial court to conclude the trial of the case expeditiously.

4.      For the foregoing reasons, present petition is converted into appeal, allowed and bail granting order dated 06.04.2009, passed by this Court, is confirmed. However, learned trial Court is directed to conclude the trial of the case within a period of two months from the date of receipt of copy of this order.”

6.      Looking to the case law cited above as well as subject case which is pending before the learned trial Court where evidence of witnesses have already been recorded, therefore, learned Trial Court is directed to bifurcate the case of co-accused Muhammad Siddique and conclude the same preferably within a period of 45 days after receipt of this order. However, in view of the matter, instant Criminal Bail Application is dismissed.

7.                Needless to mention here that the observations made hereinabove are tentative in nature and would not influence the learned Trial Court while deciding the case of either party at trial.

                                J U D G E

Manzoor