1989 PLP 4035 (MLD)
HAMEED AHMAD‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑‑Respondent
| Citation | 1989 PLP 4035 (MLD) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Riaz Ahmad, J |
| Parties | HAMEED AHMAD‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑‑Respondent |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1989 PLP 4035 (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 1989 PLP 4035 (MLD)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Riaz Ahmad, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1989 PLP 4035 (MLD) (HAMEED AHMAD‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Ch. Ghulam Murtaza Khan for Petitioner.
- Date of hearing: 25th June, 1989.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑S.497‑‑Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss.420 & 468‑‑Bail, grant of‑‑Bail was previously refused by the High Court and also by the Supreme Court Accused remained in jail for 2‑1/2 years‑‑Direction of Court to conclude the trial within six months was not complied with‑‑Co‑accused was using delaying tactics Bail allowed to accused and Trial Court directed to conclude the trial within 3 months and trial to be conducted on day to day basis. Maqbool Elahi Malik, A.‑G. for the State.
Judgment & Decree
Maqbool Elahi Malik, A.‑G. for the State. Date of hearing: 25th June, 1989. The petitioner is accused of the commission of offence under section 420/468 P.P.C. According to the allegations in the FIR, he had induced tile complainant to part with huge amount for the purchase of land which belonged to sonic other persons and thus a fraudulent transaction took place, as a result of which, the complainant suffered wrongful loss.
2. The petitioner remained absconder and then was taken into custody and thereafter, his bail application was dismissed by this Court as well as fly the Supreme Court of Pakistan. At one stage of the proceedings, his bail was also cancelled by this Court. A direction was also issued to the trial Court to conclude the trial within a period of six months. It is stated that the said period has elapsed but so far the trial has not concluded. It has been further brought into my notice that the delaying tactics are being used by the other co‑accused and that is why, the bail of one of the accused Hanif wits cancelled,
3. In support of this bail application, the learned counsel for the petitioner contends that for the last two and half years, the petitioner is behind the bars and therefore, on statutory ground also, he deserves the grant of bail.
4. The learned Advocate‑General has also appeared in this case and I have also heard him at length. In view of the peculiar circumstances of this case and particularly when more than two years have elapsed and the conclusion of the trial is not in sight, therefore, I direct that the petitioner shall be released on bail provided, he furnishes security in the sum of Rs, two hundred thousand with two sureties each in the like amount of the satisfaction of the trial Court.
5. The trial Court is directed that tile trial in this case should be conducted can day to day basis, even if the learned Judge does not stay in Lahore. It is further directed that if any of the accused on bail, does not appear or tries to delay the conclusion of trial, his bail should be cancelled immediately. The learned Judge is also directed to conclude tile trial within a period of three months. S.A. H‑141/L Bail allowed.