2020 PLP 458 (SCMR)
MUHAMMAD AZEEM — Petitioner Versus The STATE and others — Respondents
| Citation | 2020 PLP 458 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Manzoor Ahmad Malik, Sardar Tariq Masood and Amin-ud-Din Khan, JJ |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD AZEEM — Petitioner Versus The STATE and others — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2020 PLP 458 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2020 PLP 458 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Manzoor Ahmad Malik, Sardar Tariq Masood and Amin-ud-Din Khan, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2020 PLP 458 (SCMR) (MUHAMMAD AZEEM — Petitioner Versus The STATE and others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Naveed Ahmad Khawaja, Advocate Supreme Court for Petitioner.
- Naveed Iqbal Khan, Advocate Supreme Court for Respondent No.2.
Headnotes / Summary
(Against the order of the Lahore High Court, Lahore dated 15.11.2019 passed in Criminal Misc. No. 64585-B of 2019)
S. 497
Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 324, 148, 149, 337-A(i), 337-F(i) & 337-D
Attempt to commit qatl-i-amd, rioting armed with deadly weapons, unlawful assembly, shajjah-i- khafifah, ghayr-jaifah badi'ah, jaifah
Statutory ground of delay in conclusion of trial
Accused was taken into custody on 15-09-2018
First charge was framed against him alone on 13-11-2018, thereafter, an application was submitted by the complainant side for summoning another person as co-accused, which was allowed on 30-05-2019; formal charge was framed against the accused and his co-accused on 13.11.2019 and proceedings commenced, meaning thereby that when second charge was framed, the case of accused for bail on statutory ground had already matured
Perusal of orders of Trial Court showed that on certain occasions non-bailable warrants of arrest of witnesses were issued
Accused, in circumstances, had made out a case for his release on bail on statutory ground i.e. non-conclusion of trial within the period specified under S.497, Cr.P.C, as from the circumstances of the case, he could not be solely held responsible for delay in the conclusion of trial, nor was he a desperate or hardened criminal; nor an accused of terrorism and had no record of previous conviction - Accused was granted bail accordingly. Khurram Khan, additional P.-G. and Tahir, ASI for the State.
Judgment & Decree
MANZOOR AHMAD MALIK, J.
Petitioner seeks leave to appeal against the order dated 15.11.2019, whereby bail was refused to him by the learned Lahore High Court, Lahore in case FIR No. 374 dated 26.06.2018, offence under sections 324, 337D, 337-F(i), 337-A(i), 148, 149, P.P.C., registered at Police Station Farid Town, District Sahiwal.
2. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties at length and perusal of available record, it has been observed by us that as per contents of FIR, the petitioner is accused of causing a firearm injury on the person of Muhammad Farooq. He was taken into custody on 15.09.2018. First charge was framed against him alone on 13.11.2018. Thereafter, an application was submitted by the complainant side for summoning another person as accused, which was allowed on 30.05.2019, formal charge was framed against the petitioner and his co-accused on 13.11.2019 and proceedings commenced, meaning thereby that when second charge was framed, the petitioner's case for bail on statutory ground had already matured. With the assistance of learned counsel for the parties, we have perused some of the orders of the learned trial court, which are available on file and have found that on certain occasions non-bailable warrants of arrest of witnesses were issued. In these circumstances, the petitioner has made out a case for his release on bail on statutory ground i.e. non-conclusion of trial within the period specified under section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure, as from the circumstances of the case, he cannot be solely held responsible for delay in the conclusion of trial, nor is he a desperate or hardened criminal; nor an accused of terrorism and has no record of previous conviction.
3. For the foregoing, the instant criminal petition is converted into an appeal and the same is hereby allowed. Appellant Muhammad Azeem is allowed bail (in the instant FIR) subject to his furnishing bail bond in the sum of Rs.100,000/- (Rupees one hundred thousand) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial court.
4. Since trial has already commenced, therefore, learned trial court seized of the matter is directed to expedite the proceedings of trial and ensure its conclusion in the shortest possible time, in accordance with law. If the appellant misuses the concession of bail or any delay in the conclusion of trial is caused by him or anyone else acting on his behalf, the learned trial court shall be competent to recall the bail granted to him, of course, after hearing the parties, strictly in accordance with law. MWA/M-5/SC Bail granted.