989 PLP 4049 (MLD)
ABDUL WAHID KHAN — Applicant Versus THE STATE — Respondent
| Citation | 989 PLP 4049 (MLD) |
| Forum / Court | Karachi |
| Bench Members | Allahdino G. Memon, J |
| Parties | ABDUL WAHID KHAN — Applicant Versus THE STATE — Respondent |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 989 PLP 4049 (MLD)?
This judgment primarily cites: Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 989 PLP 4049 (MLD)?
The case was heard and decided by the Karachi bench comprising: Allahdino G. Memon, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 989 PLP 4049 (MLD) (ABDUL WAHID KHAN — 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), Ss.302 & 392/169--Bail, grant of--Statutory delay--Trial not concluded in a period of more than two years--Six prosecution witnesses examined, ten more to be examined--Only two adjournments obtained by accused--Delay not attributable to accused--Bail granted in circumstances. Muhammad Yasin Azad for Applicant. K.M. Nadeem, A.A.-G. for the State.
Judgment & Decree
Muhammad Yasin Azad for Applicant. K.M. Nadeem, A.A.-G. for the State. The applicant is facing trial under sections 302, 392/109, P.P.C. alongwith co-accused before the learned IIIrd Additional Sessions Judge, Central Karachi. The bail is being sought on the ground of statutory delay, and it has been contended by Mr. Muhammad Yasin Azad learned counsel appearing for the applicant, that the applicant has remained in custody for 2-1/2 years but the case has not yet been concluded. That there are 10 witnesses more to be examined by the prosecution. He has further contended that except for two adjournments one on 15-11-1988 for 17 days, and the other on 18-2-1989 for 7 days, the applicant or his counsel did not obtain any other adjournment and the delay which had occurred in the disposal of the case has not been occasioned by any act or omission of the applicant or his counsel. That in spite of the directions from the Court twice in the bail application of co-accused Azizullah, the case of the applicant has not been concluded, and therefore, the applicant was entitled to bail. Mr. K.M. Nadeem learned A.A.G. appearing for the State, has conceded to the grant of bail to the applicant in view of the fact that the material witnesses have been examined and the applicant has remained in custody for more than 2 years. I have considered the contentions of the learned counsel, and have gone through the case diary. The record shows that the applicant has remained in custody for more than 2 years and only six witnesses have been examined by now. According to the learned counsel appearing for the applicant 10 more witnesses remain to be examined by the prosecution. Of course the accused have obtained six adjournments but so far the applicant was concerned, only two adjournment have been obtained on his behalf and therefore, it cannot be said that he or his counsel were in any way responsible for the delay in conclusion of the trial. I, therefore direct that the applicant shall be released on bail on furnishing surety in the sum of Rs.50,000 (Rupees fifty thousand) and P.R. Bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Judge. S.A./A-621/K Bail allowed.