2007 P Cr (PLP)
MUHAMMAD ASHRAF — Petitioner. Versus THE STATE — Respondent
| Citation | 2007 P Cr (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD ASHRAF — Petitioner. Versus THE STATE — Respondent |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2007 P Cr (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2007 P Cr (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: N/A.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2007 P Cr (PLP) (MUHAMMAD ASHRAF — Petitioner. Versus THE STATE — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Imtiaz Ahmad Chouhan for petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
S. 497
Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S.395
Mechanically granting adjournments by Trial Court
Effect
Accused/petitioner was arrested on 1-1-2004; charge was framed on 16-6-2004; direction was issued for completion of trial by or before 31-3-2007, despite that case was hanging fire and the prosecution had failed to produce even a single witness and delay in trial, without any fault attributable to the accused, worked injustice
Prosecution could not be allowed to adopt a relaxed attitude in production of witnesses and keep the accused in jail at the expense and cost of exchequer, which was maintained mainly through indirect taxation by the public at large
Such an unconscionable delay amounted to punishment in advance, without trial
Mechanism for speedy conclusion of trial seemed to have failed
Neither the prosecution nor the process serving agency, was alive or keen in discharge of its duties
Presiding Officers barely watch the proceedings and act as an idle spectator, perhaps they ignore a sacred responsibility on their shoulders to discharge by administering justice and refusing mechanical adjournments
Accused/petitioner having made out a case for concession of bail, bail was granted to him on sureties.
Judgment & Decree
SARDAR MUHAMMAD ASLAM, J.
The petitioner seeks post-arrest bail in case F.I.R. No.691, dated 11-11-2003 registered under section 395, P.P.C. at Police Station Kahna, Lahore on the ground that he has falsely been involved in the instant case; no identification parade was conducted and that a bogus recovery has been planted against him.
2. On the other hand, learned D.P.G. opposes the grant of bail to the petitioner.
3. Heard. Record perused.
4. The petitioner was arrested on 1-1-2004. Charge was framed on 10-6-2004. Vide order dated 31-1-2007, passed in Criminal Miscellaneous No.9675 of 2007, a direction for completion of trial by or before 31-3-2007 was issued. Despite, that the case is hanging fire and the prosecution has failed to produce even a single witness. Delay in trial, without fault attributable to the accused, works injustice. Prosecution cannot be allowed to adopt a relaxed attitude in production of witness and keep the accused in jail at the expense and cost of exchequer, which is maintained mainly through indirect taxation by the public-at-large. Such an unconscious delay amounts to punishment in advance, without trial. It appears that the mechanism for speedy conclusion of trial has failed. Neither the prosecution nor the process serving agency, is alive or keen in discharge of its duties. The Presiding Officer barely watches the proceedings and acts as an idle spectator. Perhaps, they have ignored a sacred responsibility on their shoulders to discharge by administering justice and refusing mechanical adjournments.
5. For what has been discussed above, the petitioner has made out a case for concession for bail. Accordingly this petition is allowed and the petitioner is admitted to bail subject to furnishing of bail bonds in the sum of Rs.1,00,000 with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of trial Court. M.B.A./M-377/L Bail granted.