1987 PLP 2005 (MLD)
AKHTAR ALI and 3 others — Petitioners Versus THE STATE — Respondent
| Citation | 1987 PLP 2005 (MLD) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Akhtar Hasan, J |
| Parties | AKHTAR ALI and 3 others — Petitioners Versus THE STATE — Respondent |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1987 PLP 2005 (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 1987 PLP 2005 (MLD)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Akhtar Hasan, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1987 PLP 2005 (MLD) (AKHTAR ALI and 3 others — Petitioners Versus THE STATE — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Muhammad Aqil Mirza for Petitioners.
Headnotes / Summary
S.497--Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 148, 302, 307, 325 & 326/149- Bail, grant of'--Statutory ground--Delay of more than two years in conclusion of trial--Accused not hardened criminals
Delay riot attributable to accused--Accused, having indefeasible statutory right to be released on bail, bail granted. Nazir Hussain v. Ziaul Haq and others 1983 S C M R 72 and Muhammad Shahid Iqbal v. The State 1986 P Cr. L J 1900 ref. Syed Sarfraz Hussain assisted by Saleem Mitha for the State.
Judgment & Decree
S.497--Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 148, 302, 307, 325 & 326/149- Bail, grant of'--Statutory ground--Delay of more than two years in conclusion of trial--Accused not hardened criminals
Delay riot attributable to accused--Accused, having indefeasible statutory right to be released on bail, bail granted. Nazir Hussain v. Ziaul Haq and others 1983 S C M R 72 and Muhammad Shahid Iqbal v. The State 1986 P Cr. L J 1900 ref. Muhammad Aqil Mirza for Petitioners. Syed Sarfraz Hussain assisted by Saleem Mitha for the State. This bail is pressed for last about a month or so. It was hoped that the trial which was said to be due shortly would have been over by this time. It is told that one P.W. has gone to Saudi Arabia; while a few others being involved in murder cases are put in the lock-up and that it is not convenient to produce them before the trial Court. It -may not be desirable to make any comment in regard to the conduct of the trial Court in having failed to procure attendance of at least those witnesses who are confined in jail. This is so because as yet no report has been obtained from it. I understand the trial is being adjourned and the next date is the 27th instant. The trial Court is directed to complete it in all events within next fortnight by taking proceedings from day to day and a compliance report shall have to be submitted to this. Court.
2. Detention for more than two years without trial is said to be affording an indefeasible right to the accused to ask for bail. Prosecution could not show if the petitioners were hardened criminals or had, in any way, themselves delayed the trial. In fact, I was inclined to reconsider the case on merits but learned counsel insisted for the aforesaid statutory right. According to him, there is no option available to the Court to decline bail to an accused detained for more than two years without trial especially when his past history did not reveal that he was a hardened criminal. There can be no cavil with the contention. Quite a few authorities were cited including Nazir Hussain v. Ziaul Haq and others 1983 S C M R 72 and Muhammad Shahid Iqbal v. The State 1986 P Cr. L J 1900 etc. etc. and acting thereupon the petitioners seem to have a right to the grant of bail. As a result the petition is in accepted and they are allowed bail each in the sum of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees twenty-five thousand only) with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court. S.A./A-132/L Bail granted.