2009 PLP 2126 (YLR)
RUSTAM ALI — Applicant Versus THE STATE — Respondent
| Citation | 2009 PLP 2126 (YLR) |
| Forum / Court | Karachi |
| Bench Members | Syed Shafqat Ali Shah Masoomi, J |
| Parties | RUSTAM ALI — Applicant Versus THE STATE — Respondent |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2009 PLP 2126 (YLR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2009 PLP 2126 (YLR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Karachi bench comprising: Syed Shafqat Ali Shah Masoomi, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2009 PLP 2126 (YLR) (RUSTAM ALI — Applicant Versus THE STATE — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Headnotes / Summary
S. 497-Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss.302/324
Accused who was involved in a murder case, his name had been transpired in the F.I.R. with specific role in the commission of crime
No doubt case had not proceeded since last 6 years, but in murder case, no lenient view could be taken until and unless the evidence of eye-witness came on record
Trial Court was lying vacant since last one year
Sessions Judge was directed by High Court to transfer case to another Additional Sessions Judge to proceed with the case and to conclude the trial within specified period
Bail was refused in circumstances. Habibullah G. Ghori for Applicant. Miss Robina Dhamrah for the State.
Judgment & Decree
SYED SHAFQAT ALI SHAH MASOOMI, J.
By this application, applicant Rustam Ali Kandhro is seeking bail in Crime No.13 of 2003 registered with Police Station Civil Line for an offence under sections 302, 324, P.P.C. Learned counsel for the applicant has sought bail on sole ground of hardship. He states that the applicant was arrested on 26-2-2003 and since then he is in custody continuously. During above period of six months, only the Medical Officer and Tapedar have been examined three and half years back and thereafter no proceedings in the trial has been made. He submitted that delay in trial is not attributed to the applicant. However, he submitted that the trial Court is lying vacant for last one year. He further argued that no body can be kept in jail for an indefinite period. Learned State Counsel has conceded to the grant of bail to the applicant on the ground of hardship. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material brought on record. Perusal of the record shows that the applicant/accused is involved in a murder case and his name has been transpired in the F.I.R. with specific role in the commission of crime that he along with others collectively caused firearm injuries to the deceased Qurban Ali who died at the spot. No doubt the case has not proceeded since last 6 years but in this murder case, no lenient view can be taken until and unless the evidence of eyewitness come on record. Reportedly the trial Court is lying vacant since last one year therefore, learned Sessions Judge, Larkana is directed to transfer the Sessions Case No.96 of 2003 re: State v. Rustam Ali and others from the Court of learned Vth Additional Sessions Judge, Larkana to any other Additional Sessions Judge, at Larkana, to proceed with the case and preferably conclude the trial within 3 months where no adjournment will be allowed. In the circumstances, the bail application is dismissed in above terms along with listed application. H.B.T./R-20/K Bail refused.