1999 PLP 671 (MLD)
MUHAMMAD USMAN alias CHAN MAHI — Appellant Versus THE STATE — Respondent
| Citation | 1999 PLP 671 (MLD) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD USMAN alias CHAN MAHI — Appellant Versus THE STATE — Respondent |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1999 PLP 671 (MLD)?
This judgment primarily cites: Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1999 PLP 671 (MLD)?
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: 1999 PLP 671 (MLD) (MUHAMMAD USMAN alias CHAN MAHI — Appellant Versus THE STATE — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Ch. Muhammad Hussain Chichhar for Petitioner.
- Ch. Muhammad Riaz for Respondent.
Headnotes / Summary
S. 497(5)
Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S.302/148/149
Trial Court had released the accused on bail on the ground of statutory delay
Accused had obtained adjournments on two occasions whereas the other adjournments in the case were allowed when either the Trial Court was not holding the Court or the defence counsel wanted to cross -examine all the eye-witnesses on one date
All the eye-witnesses having been cross-examined trial was now near completion and it was not a fit stage for cancellation of bail
Petition was, consequently, dismissed with the direction to Trial Court to conclude the trial within three months.
Judgment & Decree
Muhammad Usman alias Chan Mahi had got a case registered against the respondents and others with Police Station Basirpur, District Okara vide F.I.R. No.393 dated 5-10-1994 for offences under sections 302, 148, 149, P.P.C. Petitioner seeks cancellation of ball allowed to the respondents by the trial Court on 11-2-1997. Cancellation of bail is being sought solely on the ground that the trial Court had erred by holding that it has been more than two years yet the trial has not concluded, whereas in fact the accused had been obtaining adjournments on one pretext or the other.
2. I have gone through the order sheets with the help of the learned counsel for the parties. The accused persons had obtained adjournments on two occasions. The other adjournments were allowed when either the trial Court was not holding the Court or the counsel for the accused wanted to cross -examine all the eye-witnesses on one date. I am informed that all the eye-witnesses have been cross-examined. Since the trial is near completion, therefore, I do not feel it would be fit stage where bail should be cancelled. In these circumstances, while disposing the petition for cancellation of bail, the trial Court is directed to conclude the trial within three months without fail. In case the trial Court feels that the respondents are trying to cause delay in conclusion of the trial, the Court shall cancel their bails. Compliance report shall be submitted to this Court through Deputy Registrar (Judicial) of this Court. N.H.Q./M-477/L Petition dismissed.