2021 PLP 2090 (SCMR)
MUHAMMAD IRFAN SHABBIR — Petitioner Versus The STATE through P.G. Punjab and another — Respondents
| Citation | 2021 PLP 2090 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Sardar Tariq Masood, Amin-ud-Din Khan and Jamal Khan Mandokhail, JJ |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD IRFAN SHABBIR — Petitioner Versus The STATE through P.G. Punjab and another — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Penal Code (XLV of 1860) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2021 PLP 2090 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Penal Code (XLV of 1860) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2021 PLP 2090 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Sardar Tariq Masood, Amin-ud-Din Khan and Jamal Khan Mandokhail, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2021 PLP 2090 (SCMR) (MUHAMMAD IRFAN SHABBIR — Petitioner Versus The STATE through P.G. Punjab and another — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Malik Matee Ullah, Advocate Supreme Court for Petitioners.
- Muhammad Jawad Zafar, Advocate Supreme Court (Through video link from Lahore) for the Complainant.
Headnotes / Summary
(Against the order dated 14.09.2021 passed by the Lahore High Court, Lahore in Criminal Misc. No. 47024-B of 2021)
S. 489-F
Constitution of Pakistan, Art. 185(3)
Statutory delay in conclusion of trial
Accused was behind bars for about one year and four months and his case had not been decided
Order sheets appended indicated that on many dates the complainant was absent, or the witnesses did not appear
Witnesses were even summoned through bailable warrants
Offence alleged against the accused was punishable for three years out of which the accused had already been incarcerated for one year and four months
Petition for leave to appeal was converted into appeal and allowed, and accused was allowed bail. Mirza Abid Majeed, DPG, Punjab along with Amjad Ali, S.I. and Asif Ali, S.I. for the State. Muhammad Jawad Zafar, Advocate Supreme Court (Through video link from Lahore) for the Complainant.
Judgment & Decree
SARDAR TARIQ MASOOD, J.
Petitioner-Muhammad Irfan Shabbir has impugned the order dated 14.09.2021 whereby bail was refused to him by the learned Lahore High Court, Lahore in case FIR No.511 dated 15.05.2014, offence under section 489-F, P.P.C., registered at Police Station South Cantt., District Lahore.
2. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties at length and perusal of available record, it has been observed by us that this petition has been filed mainly on the statutory ground as according to learned counsel the petitioner was arrested in this case on 30.06.2020 and till date no evidence has been recorded by the learned trial Court. As earlier the main file was missing and subsequently the complainant side filed an application in the trial Court for secondary evidence which was now allowed. The petitioner is behind the bars for the last about one year and four months and his case has not been decided. Order Sheet appended indicates that on many dates the complainant was absent and the witnesses did not appear and even witnesses were summoned through bailable warrants. Be that as it may, the offence alleged against the petitioner is punishable for three years out of which the petitioner has already incarcerated for one year and four months.
3. For the foregoing, the instant criminal petition is converted into an appeal and the same is hereby allowed. The appellant Muhammad Irfan Shabbir is allowed bail (in the instant FIR) subject to his furnishing bail bond in the sum of Rs.600,000/- (Rupees six hundred thousand) with two surety in the like amount to the 'satisfaction of the learned trial court.
4. Learned counsel for the complainant contends that as application for secondary evidence has been allowed by the trial Court and they want to produce their evidence, learned trial Court be directed to conclude the trial expeditiously. As charge has been framed, we expect from the learned trial Court to conclude the trial within four months after receipt of this order. If, any hurdle, caused by the petitioner in early conclusion of the trial, the complainant is at liberty to file an application under section 497(5) Code of Criminal Procedure. MWA/M-65/SC Bail granted.