IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH, CIRCUIT COURT, LARKANA

Criminal Bail Appln. No. S-701 of 2023

Applicant	Ali Murad s/o Dur Muhammad Sohu
	Through Mr. Ahsan Ahmed Quraishi, Advocate
Complainant	Nazir Ahmed Sohu, Through Mr. Mr. Safdar Ali Ghouri, advocate
The State	Through Mr. Ali Anwar Kandhro, Additional Prosecutor General for the State
Date of hearing	17-02-2025
Date of order	21-02-2025

O R D E R

OMAR SIAL, J.- Ali Murad has sought post-arrest bail in crime No. 31 of 2022, registered under sections 302 and 34 P.P.C. at the Airport police station. The F.I.R. was registered on 11.12.2022 on information provided by Nazir Ahmed Sohu. Sohu recorded that on 30.11.2022, he was at home when his sister Sadoran stepped out for some work. The complainant and two of his relatives saw that Ali Murad and Roshan scuffled with Sadoran and then hit her with the dandas they carried. The assailants then left the scene. Unfortunately, Sadoran expired on 09.12.2022.

2.      I have heard the learned counsels for the accused, the complainant, and the learned Additional Prosecutor General.

3.      There is a delay in registering the F.I.R.; however, it seems that initially, the complainant party did not intend to register an F.I.R. but did so when the injured party succumbed to her injuries on 09.12.2023. Be that as it may, the trial court will have to determine the impact of the delay in registering the F.I.R. in the circumstances of this case after it has had an opportunity to review the evidence produced.

4.      Mr. Qureshi has also stressed that there is a delay in the conclusion of the trial and, therefore, the applicant deserves to be enlarged on bail. The record reflects that the applicant was arrested on 14.02.2022. The prosecution has not been concluded even after three years since. The third proviso to section 497 Cr.P.C. provides that the Court shall, except where it believes that the delay in the trial of the accused has been occasioned by an act or omission of the accused or any other person acting on his behalf or in exercise of any right or privilege under any law for the time being in force, direct that any person shall be released on bailwho, being accused of an offense punishable with death, has been detained for such offense for a continuous period exceeding two years and whose trial for such offense has not concluded. This concession shall, however, not apply to a previously convicted offender for an offense punishable with death or imprisonment for life or to a person who, in the opinion of the Court, is a hardened, desperate, or dangerous criminal or involved in terrorism.

5.      The applicant does not fall within the three categories of offenders not entitled to the concession of section 497 Cr.P.C. He qualifies for the concession as three years have passed, and the trial has not concluded. The remaining aspect to determine was whether the applicant or anybody acting on his behalf was responsible for the delay. The learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Larkana, was requested to provide a report. Vide report dated 06.09.2024, the learned judge reported that from 03.06.2023 till 14.09.2024, the trial could not proceed because the counsels for the complainant and the applicant both kept seeking adjournments, and hence no witness could be examined. Vide report dated 17.02.2025, learned trial court reported that five out of thirteen witnesses have been examined and that the delay in concluding the trial since was primarily because of absence of witnesses. Bailable warrants currently have been issued against the witnesses by the trial court. The case diaries in this Court reveal that it was on 25.01.2024 when the learned counsel for the complainant had assured the court that all the witnesses would be produced for examination in the trial court on 27.01.2024. Unfortunately, that assurance has yet to materialize after more than a year. The complainant and his counsel have shown very little interest in these proceedings.

6.      Given the above, it cannot be said conclusively that the entire blame for the delay in concluding the trial is on behalf of the prosecution. However, since 06.09.2024, substantial adjournments have occurred due to witnesses' non-availability. It would be appropriate in the circumstances if the bail application is dismissed and the learned trial court is directed to use its best efforts to conclude the trial within two months. If the trial does not conclude due to the non-appearance of prosecution witnesses, the applicant would be at liberty to make a fresh application for a grant of bail on this ground before the learned trial court.

JUDGE