2008 PLP 350 (MLD)
GHULAM HUSSAIN — Petitioner Versus THE STATE and 2 others — Respondents
| Citation | 2008 PLP 350 (MLD) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | GHULAM HUSSAIN — Petitioner Versus THE STATE and 2 others — Respondents |
| Primary Law | National Accountability Ordinance (XVIII of 1999) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2008 PLP 350 (MLD)?
This judgment primarily cites: National Accountability Ordinance (XVIII of 1999) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2008 PLP 350 (MLD)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: N/A.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2008 PLP 350 (MLD) (GHULAM HUSSAIN — Petitioner Versus THE STATE and 2 others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Sittar Sahil for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
S.9(a) & Sched.
Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 199
Constitutional petition--Bail, grant of
Despite direction by High Court for conclusion of trial within a period of four months, prosecution failed to conclude the trial
Effect
Speedy trial was the right of accused and prosecution failed to explain long delay occurring in conclusion of trial
Direction issued by High Court having not been complied with, no fault could be attributed to accused
Keeping accused further behind the bars, would amount to denial of justice
High Court in exercise of Constitutional jurisdiction allowed bail to accused.
Judgment & Decree
The petitioner has sought post-arrest bail through this constitutional petition in A.C. Ref. No. 22 of 2003 (F.I.R. No.C/27/99), dated 6-4-1999 registered under sections 420/468/ 446/409/477-A/471/109, P.P.C. read with section 5(2)47, PCA, 1947 at Police Station FIA/CBC, Lahore.
2. Allegations against the petitioner are that he while posted in Foreign Exchange Branch National Bank of Pakistan, Gujranwala, committed fraud and embezzled a huge amount causing loss to the bank.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that in spite of issuance of direction by this Court on 15-12-2005 in Writ Petition No.16713 of 2005 for conclusion of trial within a period of four months, no substantial progress has been made so far and the petitioner is rotting in jail.
4. On the other hand, learned counsel for N.A.B. opposed the grant of bail to the petitioner and claimed that the trial will be concluded within a period of six months from today.
5. Heard. Record perused.
6. On 15-12-2005 while hearing Writ Petition No. 16713 of 2005, we were informed that seven prosecution witnesses had been examined and that trial will be concluded shortly. Thus a direction was issued for conclusion of trial within four months. However, statements of four more witnesses have been recorded, thereafter. Eleven witnesses are yet to be examined by the prosecution. Speedy trial is the right of the accused. The prosecution has failed to explain long delay occurred in conclusion of the trial. The direction issued by this Court has not been complied with. No fault is attributable to the petitioner. To keep him behind the bars further will amount to denial of justice.
7. For what has been discussed above, we are of the view that the petitioner is entitled to concession of bail. This petition is allowed and the petitioner is admitted to bail subject to furnishing of bail bonds in the sum of rupees two Lacs (Rs.200,000) with two sureties in the like amount to the satisfaction of learned trial Court. M.H./G-79/L?????????????????????????????????????? ??????????????????????????????????????????????? Petition allowed.