2000 PLP 3006 (YLR)
MUHAMMAD MANSHA‑‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑‑‑Respondent
| Citation | 2000 PLP 3006 (YLR) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Nasim Sikandar, J |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD MANSHA‑‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑‑‑Respondent |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2000 PLP 3006 (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 2000 PLP 3006 (YLR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Nasim Sikandar, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2000 PLP 3006 (YLR) (MUHAMMAD MANSHA‑‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑‑‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Tariq Muhammad Iqbal Chaudhry for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑‑S.497(1), third proviso‑‑‑Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order (4 of 1979), Art. 3/4‑‑‑Bail on ground of statutory delay‑‑ Accused was in‑ jail for the last more than one‑year‑‑‑Delay in conclusion of the trial was not attributed by the prosecution to the accused‑‑‑Mere fact, of the challan having been submitted in the Court, by itself, could not disentitle the accused to concession of bail on ground of statutory, delay‑‑ Accused was admitted to bail in circumstances. Akhtar Hussain Shah v. The State 1999 PCr. LJ 225 ref. Zawar Hussain Qureshi. for the State. bate of hearing: 2nd March, 2000.
Judgment & Decree
Zawar Hussain Qureshi. for the State. bate of hearing: 2nd March, 2000. The petitioner was arrested on 31‑12‑1998 in case F.I.R. No.676 of 1998 dated 31‑12‑1998 registered at Police Station, Saddar, Chichawatni under Article 3/4 of the Prohibition .(Enforcement of Hadd) Order, 1979.
2. According to the prosecution on a raid at Cichawatni Bypass Bus Stand he was found to be in possession of heroin weighing 720 grams.
3. His‑application for concession of bail was earlier rejected by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Chichawatni on 15‑5‑1999.
4. For the petitioner it is contended that he is entitled to bail on statutory ground for having been detained for more than, one year while the offence charged provides for a punishment of seven years only. In support of various other submissions including lack of independent recovery witness the payer is supported by re: Akhtar Hussain Shah v. State (1999 PCr.LJ 225). Also it is contended that the offence charged provides for a maximum punishment of seven years only and, therefore, does not fall within the prohibitory clauses.
5. Learned counsel for the State however, submits that the challan of the case having been submitted before the Court, no case for grant of the prayer is made out.
6. After considering the submissions for both sides, I find that the petitioner is entitled to concession of bail on statutory ground as provided in sub‑clause (a) of third proviso to section 497, Cr.P.C. On the last date of hearing, the prosecution was asked to provide the record so that it could be seen if the delay , in trial of the accused was occasioned by his act or by the act of another person acting on his behalf. The record of the case has not been submitted. Admittedly, the petitioner was arrested more than one year back and it is not the case of the prosecution that the delay in conclusion of the, trial had resulted on account of any fault on his part. Mere fact that the challan has been submitted in the Court will not by itself disentitle the petitioner to concession of bail on statutory ground:
7. Accordingly, this, application is allowed. The petitioner shall be released subject to his furnishing of bond in the sum F of Rs.1,00,000 (rupees one lac) with one. surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court. N:H.Q/M‑313, Bail granted.