2004 PLP 870 (YLR)
GHULAM ALI MALGHANI — Applicant Versus THE STATE — Respondent
| Citation | 2004 PLP 870 (YLR) |
| Forum / Court | Karachi |
| Bench Members | Ghulam Nabi Soomro, J |
| Parties | GHULAM ALI MALGHANI — Applicant Versus THE STATE — Respondent |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2004 PLP 870 (YLR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2004 PLP 870 (YLR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Karachi bench comprising: Ghulam Nabi Soomro, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2004 PLP 870 (YLR) (GHULAM ALI MALGHANI — Applicant Versus THE STATE — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Headnotes / Summary
S.497
Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S.302/34
Delay in trial-- Accused was stated to be in continuous custody for the last two years, four months and twenty days
During this period only two formal witnesses had been examined-- Despite coercive process of bailable warrants having been issued against the prosecution witnesses for more than one year, they did not appear in the Court and their conduct was indicative of their ulterior motive to see the accused in jail for as much time as possible
State Counsel had conceded to the grant of bail to the accused
Bail was allowed to accused in circumstances. 2003 YLR 2029 ref. Muhammad Ayaz Soomro for Applicant. Muhammad Ismail Bhutto for the State.
Judgment & Decree
Muhammad Ayaz Soomro for Applicant. Muhammad Ismail Bhutto for the State. The applicant with his three co- accused is facing trial for murder of Allahando, before the Court of Ist Additional Sessions Judge, Jacobabad. The learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is in continuous custody since last two years, four months and 20 days, during which period only the doctor and a formal witness corpse bearer have been examined. The learned counsel has taken me through the case diaries, which show that the charge in the case was framed on 20-9-2002 where -after process of B.Ws. was continuously ordered-against the P.Ws. till date with no response from the P.Ws. The counsel urges that the purpose in that is obvious and that is to cause confinement of the applicant in jail for as much time as possible. Reliance has been placed upon 2003 YLR 2029. Mr. Muhammad Ismail Bhutto, learned counsel appearing for the State, while conceding to prayer, has further stated that all the private witnesses have failed to respond to the Court process. The case diaries show that the coercive process of B.Ws. was issued against the P.Ws. for more than a year. This conduct of the P.Ws. is indicative of their ulterior motive, to see the applicant/accused behind the bars. The reported decision supports the applicant's case. In view of the above circumstances and no objection from the State Counsel, the applicant is granted bail subject to furnishing solvent surety in the sum of Rs. two hundred thousand and P.R. Bond in the like amount, to the satisfaction of Additional Registrar of this Court. Criminal Bail Application No.480 of 2003 stands disposed of. N.H.Q./G-1/K Bail allowed.