2008 PLP 632 (MLD)
FAIQ ALI — Applicant Versus THE STATE — Respondent
| Citation | 2008 PLP 632 (MLD) |
| Forum / Court | Karachi |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | FAIQ ALI — Applicant Versus THE STATE — Respondent |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1895) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2008 PLP 632 (MLD)?
This judgment primarily cites: Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1895) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2008 PLP 632 (MLD)?
The case was heard and decided by the Karachi 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 632 (MLD) (FAIQ ALI — Applicant Versus THE STATE — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Headnotes / Summary
S.497
Bail was sought on the ground of hardship, contending that charge was framed after about three years from his arrest, while no witness had' been examined
Nothing was available against accused showing that he caused the delay in proceedings as he was in jail, but other circumstances existed due to which case could not proceed, benefit of which could not be given to accused, because of his role in the F.I.R. which had been alleged to be very open and conspicuous
Trial Judge was directed to take up the matter and record the evidence of complainant as well as other available witnesses after amending the charge within specified period; thereafter, if the case was not decided, accused would be entitled to move bail application.
Judgment & Decree
MUNIB AHMAD KHAN, J.
Learned counsel argued that the bail application is moved only on the ground of hardship. He submits that the applicant was arrested on 8-7-2003 but charge was framed on 5-5-2006 while no witness has been examined so far. He relied upon 1986 PCr.LJ 2947, 1992 PCr.LJ 2325 and PLD 2005 Page.
255. Learned counsel submits that there is no delay on the part of the applicant as on several dates he was not produced by the jail authorities and thereafter even after framing of the charge no evidence has been recorded.
2. On the other hand learned State Counsel submits that it is fact that charge was framed on 5-5-2006 and no further proceedings could be taken as another absconded accused was arrested and charge was to be amended but before that Court was fallen vacant on 23-2-2006 and still Court is lying vacant. He submits that the diary sheets show that the witnesses were present on six times before framing of charge but thereafter they are not attending as amended charge is to be framed and notices are to be issued.
3. I have examined the case, although there is nothing on the part of the accused persons to delay proceedings and he is in jail since 8-7-2003 but there are other circumstances due to which case could not proceed of which benefit cannot be given to the accused persons vis-a-vis his role in the F.I.R. which has been alleged to be very open and conspicuous. In the circumstances, I direct the District and Sessions Judge, Shikarpur to take up the matter himself or assign it to any other Additional Sessions Judge and record the evidence of complainant as well as other available witnesses after amending the charge within a period of four months. Thereafter, if the case is not decided, the applicant will be entitled to move bail application before the Trial Court. H.B.T./F-26/K Bail Refused.