2009 PLP 302 (YLR)
MEHRAB — Applicant Versus THE STATE — Respondent
| Citation | 2009 PLP 302 (YLR) |
| Forum / Court | Karachi |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Moosa K. Leghari, J |
| Parties | MEHRAB — Applicant Versus THE STATE — Respondent |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2009 PLP 302 (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 2009 PLP 302 (YLR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Karachi bench comprising: Muhammad Moosa K. Leghari, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2009 PLP 302 (YLR) (MEHRAB — Applicant Versus THE STATE — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Headnotes / Summary
S. 497
Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S.302/34
Accused was behind the bars for the last six years
Case diary revealed that non-bailable warrants were being issued against the prosecution witnesses as they were not attending the court
Direction given by the High Court for expeditious disposal of the case, could not be complied with despite the lapse of almost two years
Case was that of hardship as inordinate delay in conclusion of the trial was alarming
No chance of conclusion of the case in near future due to non-appearance of prosecution witnesses despite issuance of coercive process
Accused was granted bail, in circumstances. Aijaz Shaikh for Applicant. Mashooq Ali Sammo, Asstt. A.-G. for the State.
Judgment & Decree
MUHAMMAD MOOSA K. LEGHARI, J.
The applicant is facing trial in Sessions Case No.202 of 1999, arising out of crime No.14 of 1999, Police Station Piaro Laund, under sections 302, 34, P.P.C. on the accusation of causing murder of Eidan. The bail is pressed solely on the ground of hardship as the accused is behind bars since 31st May, 1999, but the trial has yet not concluded. As contended by learned counsel of the applicant/accused the examination-in-chief of three witnesses was recorded after the directions of this Court vide order, dated 22-8-2002 but those P.Ws. are not attending the Court for the purpose of their cross-examination despite issuance of N.B.Ws. Learned A.A.-G. while referring to the order, dated 26-4-2004 passed by the trial Court has contended that some progress was made after the directions and three out of nine P.Ws. were examined. However, he has not able to place on record any progress made after April, 2004 though one year has passed. The applicant is behind bars since last six years. The case diary placed on record reveals that N.B.Ws. are being issued against the. P.Ws. as they are not attending the Court. The direction given by this Court for expeditious disposal of the case could not be complied with despite the lapse of 'almost two years. In my humble view this is a case of hardship as inordinate delay in conclusion of trial is alarming. Besides there seems no chance of coercive progress in the near future due to non-appearance of P.Ws. despite issuance of coercive process. In the circumstances, the applicant is granted bail in the sum of Rs.2,00,000 (Two Lac) and P.R. bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Trial Court. H.B.T./M-184/K Bail granted.