Cr.B.A.No. 514 of
2012.
For Hearing.
-
13.08.2012. Mr.Liaquat Ali Khaskheli advocate for the applicants.
Mr.Sardar Ali Shah APG.
-
SALAHUDDIN PANHWAR, J-The applicants have filed Application under Section 497 CRPC, in Crime
No. 2/2011 of Police Station, Gullu Sial, District Khairpur under Section 395,
436, 148, 149, 504, 427, 337-H2, PPC.
2. Relevant
facts are that on 19.5.2011 at 1330 hours complainant Laldino Jagirani
lodged FIR alleging therein that on 07.04.2011 at 1100 hours, complainant,
his uncle Ghulam Mustafa, cousin Shahdad alias Shahzado and other family
members were available in the house, meanwhile the accused persons namely Nisar
Ahmed Jagirani, Allah Wassayo Jagirani with LMG rifle, 3. Ghulam Shabbir
Jagirani, 4.Ayoob alias Kaleri, 5.Shah Baig Jagirani with G-3 rifles, 6.Uris
Jagirani with Rocket Launcher, 7.Dil Murad Jagirani, 8.Muhammad Nawaz Jagirani,
9.Dost Muhammad Jagirani, 10.Behram Jagirani, 11. Yameen Jagirani, 12.Yaseen
Jagirani, 13.Ghazi Jagirani, 14.Dholan Jagirani with Kalashinkovs, 15.Akram
Jagirani, 16.Panah Jagirani, 17.Deedar Jagirani, 18.Shaman Jagirani with
rifles, 19.Iqbal Jagirani, 20.Sikiladho Jagirani, Yousif with guns intruded in
the house of complainant, used abused language, robbed gold ornaments, 150
mounds of wheat, clothes, cots, beds, cash of Rs.30000/- shop and house hold
articles and took away on tractor trolley. Thereafter accused Nisar set the
house on fire and other accused made aerial firing. On the cries of complainant
party witnesses Chodihyoon khan Jagirani and Mehboob and other villagers attracted
there, saw and identified the accused persons, then some of accused went away
on the tractor trolley and rest of by
foot, while issuing threats of murder. Complainant went to P.S Guloo Siyal for
registration of FIR but his FIR was not registered, then he moved an
application to DPO Khairpur and also filed such petition which was allowed by
learned Ist Additional Sessions Judge, Khairpur and after obtaining order from
the Court, he appeared at PS and lodged the FIR as stated above.
3.
Record reveals that after the registration of FIR, police arrested
accused in this case and submitted challan. The applicants moved bail
application on merits before the trial Court, the same was dismissed then they
approached this Court in Cr.B.A.No.548/11 same was also dismissed by order
dated 3.10.11. Thereafter the applicants preferred bail application on
statutory ground of delay in conclusion of the case but trial Court dismissed
application by order dated 6.6.12 with clear observations that some of
witnesses have been examined and delay is not on the part of prosecution.
4. Counsel
for the applicants/accused has inter alia contended that the applicants were
arrested on 3.6.2011 and the charge was framed on 27.9.2011. More than one year
has been passed but the case has not been concluded, therefore the applicants
are entitled for bail after arrest on statutory ground.
5. Conversely Learned State counsel opposed the bail application on the ground
that two close relatives of co-accused Akram
and Bahram were absconder; they were arrested later on, therefore,
amended charge was framed on 24.1.2012 ; delay is not on the part of the
prosecution therefore they are not entitled for bail.
06. Heard
leaned counsel, perused the diaries of the case and record.
07. It is an admitted position that two very
close relatives Akram and Bahram were absconder in this case, charge was framed
but subsequently they were arrested in this case, therefore, amended charge was
framed. The case diaries also reveal that due to feud between Jagirani tribe,
the witnesses were unable to attend the Court but subsequently on police
protection provided by the trial Court they attended the Court. Some of the
witnesses have been examined, and on last hearings witnesses were present but
due to election of lawyers, defense counsel not appeared in the court.
08. Under
these circumstances it appears that two absconder accused being close relatives
of the applicant with the their connivance by designed strategy have caused the
delay in conclusion of the trial, according to facts of the case it was difficult for the witnesses to come in the
Court without support of police escort. It appears that applicants/accused have
not made out a case of bail on statutory delay, caused on the part of
prosecution, thus applicants have failed to make out their case on the
statutory ground however trial court is directed to conclude the trial within
three months. Applicants will be at liberty to repeat bail application on
statutory grounds, if case is not concluded within three months or if they have
any fresh ground.
09. Above are the reasons of a short order dated
13.08.2012 whereby the bail application was dismissed with directions to the
trial Court to conclude trial within three months.
JUDGE
Akber.