2005 PLP 792 (YLR)
HAROON ‑‑‑ Applicant Versus THE STATE Respondent
| Citation | 2005 PLP 792 (YLR) |
| Forum / Court | Karachi |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Afzal Soomro, J |
| Parties | HAROON ‑‑‑ Applicant Versus THE STATE Respondent |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2005 PLP 792 (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 2005 PLP 792 (YLR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Karachi bench comprising: Muhammad Afzal Soomro, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2005 PLP 792 (YLR) (HAROON ‑‑‑ 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.302/324/452‑‑‑Bail, grant of‑‑‑Accused was behind the bars for the last more than three years, but trial had not been concluded and said delay in trial was not attributed to accused or anybody acting on his behalf‑‑‑After framing charge out of 12 hearings, complainant was in attendance on only one date‑‑‑Almost 65 hearings of the case had been made during trial, but none of prosecution witnesses had been examined except Medical Officer‑‑‑Examining one witness after nearly three years, one month and 25 days, was shocking‑‑‑In the eye of law each and every accused, unless found guilty by a competent Court, was presumed to be innocent and inordinate delay in prosecution not only would amount to abuse of process of the Court, but also would result strongly against such concept of punishment before judgment‑‑‑State counsel had no objection to grant bail to accused‑‑ Accused have been able to make out case for grant of bail, he was admitted to bail. Abdul Rasool Abbasi for Applicant. Mushtaque Ahmed Kourejo for the State.
Judgment & Decree
Abdul Rasool Abbasi for Applicant. Mushtaque Ahmed Kourejo for the State. By this order I propose to dispose of criminal bail application filed on behalf of the applicant Haroon S/o Ghulam Mustafa Gadehi in a case arising out of crime F.I.R. No. 124 of 2001 registered at P.S. Ghouspur for an offence under section 302, 324 and 452, P.P.C. Bail plea of the applicant was declined by the learned trial Court namely Sessions Judge, Dadu vide order, dated 9‑2‑2004. In this application, the only ground urged on behalf of the applicant/accused Haroon is hardship and delay in the conclusion of the trial. I have heard learned counsel for the respective parties and perused the material brought on record. It has been contended by the learned counsel for the applicant/accused that applicant was arrested on 25‑8‑2001 and since then he is behind bars which come to a period of 3 years, 3 months and 10 days but the trial has not yet been concluded and the delay in trial is not attributed to the present applicant or any body acting on his behalf. He submits that charge has recently been framed on 18‑2‑2004; more particular to point out that after framing of charge, out of 12 hearings, the complainant was in attendance on only date i.e. 19‑5‑2004. He further submits that almost 65 hearings of the case have been made during the trial but none of the. P.Ws have been examined except one formal witness i.e. Medical Officer who was examined only on 20‑10‑2004 that comes after nearly 3 years, 1 month and 25 days which is shocking. He finally asserted that in the eye of law each and every accused unless found guilty by a competent Court is presumed to be innocent and inordinate delay in the prosecution not only amounts to abuse of the process of the Court but also do something strongly against such concept of punishment before judgment. Learned State counsel, in view of the above legal position, has raised no objection to the grant of bail to the present applicant. For what it has been discussed above, I am of the considered opinion that learned counsel for the applicant has been able to make out a case for bail which is granted provided he furnishes solvent surety in the sum of Rs.200,000 (rupees two lacs) and P.R. bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of trial Court. Criminal Bail Application No.760 of 2004 stands disposed of. H. B. T. /H‑37/K Bail granted.