2008L2506 (PLP)
MUHAMMAD QASIM — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent
| Citation | 2008L2506 (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD QASIM — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2008L2506 (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2008L2506 (PLP)?
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: 2008L2506 (PLP) (MUHAMMAD QASIM — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Kashif Javed Chaudhry for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
S. 497
Control of Narcotic Substances Act (XXV of 1997), Ss.9(c)/15
Although the offence allegedly committed by the accused was grave in nature but he was behind the bars for the last more than two years without any tangible progress in the trial
Right to life and liberty was a fundamental right guaranteed by the Constitution to a citizen which included the right of accused to a speedy trial
Accused could not be detained in jail for an indefinite period without a trial contrary to the Constitution and law
Co-accused had been allowed bail by High Court on the ground of delay in the trial
Judgment & Decree
Through this petition, the petitioner seeks post-arrest bail in case F. I.R. No. 6 of 2005, dated 16-10-2005 for offence under sections 9(c)/15 Control of `Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, registered at Police Station ANF, Faisalabad.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the petitioner is behind bars since 16-5-2005 and despite a lapse of more than two years not a single witness has been examined by the learned trial Court.
3. On 18-10-2007, report was invited from the learned trial Court about the position of the trial which has been received. According to the report, on 22-10-2007 the case was fixed for recording of the prosecution evidence but on account of non-availability of the entire case property, the learned defence counsel requested for an adjournment. The case is now fixed for recording of prosecution evidence on 6-12-2007.
4. From the report it is evident that on the last date of hearing the case was adjourned for no fault of the accused as the prosecution had failed to produce entire case property in the trial Court. Although, the offence committed by the petitioner is grave in nature but the fact remains that he is behind the bars for the last more than two years and there is no tangible progress in the trial. It is a right of every accused to insist for speedy trial. Right to life and liberty is a fundamental right guaranteed to a citizen under Article 9 of the Constitution. The said fundamental right includes the petitioner's right to a speedy trial. A person cannot be detained in Jail for an indefinite period without a trial as it would be an exercise contrary to the Constitution and law. In an offshoot of the instant case (Criminal Miscellaneous No. 6232-B of 2007 titled Khurram Zeeshan v. The State), the co-accused was allowed bail by a Division Bench of this Court comprising of our learned brothers Khawaja Muhammad Sharif and Asif Saeed Khan Khosa, JJ, on the ground of delay in trial. Further, the Hon'ble Supreme. Court of Pakistan in the case of Gull Zaman v. The State (1999 SCMR 1271) has allowed bail to the accused who was behind the bars for about a year and a half. Therefore, while keeping in line with the order of the learned Division Bench and relying on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan referred to above, we admit the petitioner to bail subject to his furnishing bail bond in the sum of Rs.2,00,000 with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Deputy Registrar (Judicial) of this Court. N.H.Q./M-520/L Bail allowed.