1981 P Cr (PLP)
MUHAMMAD SHABBIR KHAN AND ANOTHER-Applicants/Accused Versus THE STATE-Respondent
| Citation | 1981 P Cr (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | Karachi |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD SHABBIR KHAN AND ANOTHER-Applicants/Accused Versus THE STATE-Respondent |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1981 P Cr (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1981 P Cr (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the Karachi bench comprising: N/A.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1981 P Cr (PLP) (MUHAMMAD SHABBIR KHAN AND ANOTHER-Applicants/Accused Versus THE STATE-Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Mr. A. Sattar Shaikh, learned Assistant Advocate-General stated that even if he were to agree that the case against the applicants may not fall under section 307, yet, in view of the charge under section 397, the appli cant would still not be entitled to bail on merits; but looking to the fact that this is a non-murder case, the trial is not likely to commence in the near future and, therefore, be would have no objection if the applicants are granted bail on this account, leaving it open to the prosecution to apply for cancellation of bail at any stage of the trial.
- I fully agree with the learned Assistant Advocate-General. Indeed, more than one year has passed but the trial has not commenced and, as stated by the learned Assistant Advocate-General, nor is it likely to com mence in near future as number of murder cases are pending trial for a number of years in the Courts blow.
Headnotes / Summary
S. 497-Bail, grant of-Petitioners, accused of murderous assault, in Jail for over one year but trial not yet commenced nor likely to commence in near future due to backlog of murder cases pending in Sessions Court-Bail allowed, in circumstances.
Judgment & Decree
The applicants, who are constables of the F. S. F. are accused in a case under section 307/394/34, P. P. C. The prosecution case against them is that on 20thOctober, 1976 at about 6 p.m. they attacked their colleague Fakhruddin and caused him knife injuries and also snatched a watch and gold-ring from him. His application for bail has been rejected by the Sessions Court below. Mr. Abdul Alim K. Talib, learned counsel for the applicants contend ed that even if the prosecution case was assumed to be correct this would not be a case of section 307, P. P. C. but would at best be a case under section 324, P. P. C. as the injuries on the injured Fakhruddin have all been declared simple by the Doctor, none of them having been caused on vital part, and therefore this was a fit case for release of the applicants on bail. Learned counsel next contended that although the offence took place more than a year ago, the trial has not yet commenced and is also not likely to commence in the near future due to back log of murder cases pending in the Sessions Court. Mr. A. Sattar Shaikh, learned Assistant Advocate-General stated that even if he were to agree that the case against the applicants may not fall under section 307, yet, in view of the charge under section 397, the appli cant would still not be entitled to bail on merits; but looking to the fact that this is a non-murder case, the trial is not likely to commence in the near future and, therefore, be would have no objection if the applicants are granted bail on this account, leaving it open to the prosecution to apply for cancellation of bail at any stage of the trial. I fully agree with the learned Assistant Advocate-General. Indeed, more than one year has passed but the trial has not commenced and, as stated by the learned Assistant Advocate-General, nor is it likely to com mence in near future as number of murder cases are pending trial for a number of years in the Courts blow. For the aforesaid reasons, I grant bail to the applicants in the sum of Rs. 10,000 each with one surety and P. R. in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court. It will however, be open to the prosecution to apply for cancellation of bail at any stage of the trial if the evidence brought on record warrants such a course. Bail allowed.