1995 P Cr (PLP)

S. 497(1), third proviso

Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S.302/148/149

Bail, grant of

Trial against accused was not complete even after a lapse of two years, four months and 15 days

Mere commencement of trial could not form a basis for refusal of bail if the case for bail was otherwise made out

Neither the law was to be stretched in favour of the prosecution, nor the bail could be refused to accused as punishment

Accused was allowed bail in circumstances. Nur Elahi v. The State PLD 1966 SC 708; Nasceb Ullah v. The State 1991 SCMR 2450; Ahmad Hasan Shah v. The State 1988 MLD 450; Muhammad Ismail v. Muhammad Rafique and another PLD 1989 SC 585; Manzoor and 4 others v. The State PLD 1972 SC 81 and Amir v. The State PLD 1972 SC 277 ref. Ch. Liaqat Ali Sandhu for Petitioner. Ch. Muhammad Aslam Chatha for the Complainant. Ms. Tasneem Amin for the State. The petitioner is accused of offences under section 302/148/149, P.P.C. vide F.I.R. No.400/9l, dated 16-10-1991, registered at Police Station Naushera Virkan, District Gujranwala.

2. The learned counsel for the petitioner, the State and the complainant were heard at length in respect of the contentions raised herein. Admittedly, the petitioner has been in the judicial lock-up for over 2 years, 4 months and 15 days and it was further confirmed on behalf of the State that the proceedings of the private complaint filed by the complainant have commenced prior to the proceedings in the challan case in accordance with the dictum laid down in Nur Elahi v. The State PLD 1966 SC 708, although the charge has been framed against the petitioner in the said case. Therefore, the contention raised by the learned counsel for the complainant to the effect that the bail cannot be allowed as the trial has started, is not tenable nor the reliance placed on Naseeb Ullah v. The State 1991 SCMR 2450 is relevant to the facts and circumstances of the instant case. The other argument raised by the learned counsel for the complainant to the effect that the petitioner is a dangerous person as a case has been registered against him for being involved in an incident in jail, has not found support from the record produced before the Court. Therefore, taking into consideration that the State has failed to complete the trial of the case against the petitioner even after a lapse of 2 years, 4 months and 15 days, as stated above; and further taking into consideration the dictum laid down in Ahmad Hassan Shah v. The State 1988 MLD 450 and Muhammad Ismail v. Muhammad Rafique and another PLD 1989 SC 585 to the effect that mere commencement of trial cannot be basis for the refusal of bail, if a case for the same is otherwise made out; and further taking into consideration the dictum laid down in Manzoor and 4 others v. The State PLD 1972 SC 81 and Amir v. The State PLD 1972 SC 277 to the effect that neither the law has to be stretched in favour of the prosecution nor the bail has to be refused as punishment; and further taking into consideration the provisions of clause (b) of third proviso to subsection (1) of section 497, Cr.P.C. i.e. that any person shall be released on bail, who being accused of offence punishable with death has been detained for such offence for a continuous period exceeding two years and whose trial has not been concluded, the petitioner is hereby allowed bail in the sum of Rs.50,000 with two sureties in the. like amount to the satisfaction of the A.C./Duty Magistrate, Gujranwala. N.H.Q./M-1950/L Bail granted.