2009 PLP 296 (YLR)
SUDHEER-Applicant Versus THE STATE — Respondent
| Citation | 2009 PLP 296 (YLR) |
| Forum / Court | Karachi |
| Bench Members | Mrs. Yasmin Abbasey, J |
| Parties | SUDHEER-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 296 (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 296 (YLR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Karachi bench comprising: Mrs. Yasmin Abbasey, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2009 PLP 296 (YLR) (SUDHEER-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
Delay in conclusion of trial without any fault of accused
Effect
Diaries of the Trial Court had shown that not a single day's delay was on the part of accused
When the Trial Court had failed to conclude the trial of the case and State counsel had given consent for grant of bail to the accused, accused was enlarged on bail, in circumstances. 1999 SCMR 2147; 2003 MLD 19 and 2005 PCr.LJ 147 rel. Aijaz Shaikh for Applicant. Anwar Husain Ansari for the State.
Judgment & Decree
MRS. YASMIN ABBASEY, J.--Applicant Sudheer, involved in Crime No.15 of 2000, registered at Police Station Salaro, under section 302, P.P.C. has moved this application for grant of bail. The main ground urged by learned counsel is that applicant was taken in custody on 26-9-2000 and since then he is in jail without any reasonable cause. On 22-12-2004 in Criminal Bail Application No.682 of 2004, this Court had given directions to the learned trial Court for disposal of the case within three months, but inspite of that direction matter has not concluded, even, in five years and is still at the stage of prosecution evidence. According to learned counsel for the applicant, this is a case of hardship to the applicant, 1999 SCMR 2147 has been referred wherein, under the similar circumstances directions were given by High Court for disposal of the case, and learned trial Court has failed to conclude the trial within specified time given, the applicant of that case allowed to be admitted on bail. Learned counsel has further referred 2003 MLD 19, wherein it is expressed that "Expeditious and fair trial is a fundamental right of an accused person. The intention of law is that a criminal case must be disposed of without unnecessary delay. It will not be difficult to comprehend that inordinate delay in imparting justice was likely to cause erosion of public confidence in the judicial system on one hand, and on the other hand, it was bound to create a sense of helplessness and despair and feelings of frustration and anguish apart from adding to their woes and miseries". 2005 PCr.LJ 147 also expresses the same view that if accused is in continuous custody for the last more than four years and the trial has not concluded. Accused is entitled for the grant of bail. Perusal of the diaries of the trial Court, placed on record by learned counsel, reveals that not a single day's delay is on the part of applicant. Hence, in the circumstances of, the case, when the learned trial Court has failed to conclude the trial of the case and the consent given by learned State counsel, applicant is allowed to be enlarged on bail subject to furnishing solvent surety in the sum of Rs. 200000 (Rupees Two Lac) and P.R. bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court. H.B.T./S-93/K Bail granted.