1990 PLP 1090 (SCMR)
TARIQ BUTT‑‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑‑‑Respondent
| Citation | 1990 PLP 1090 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Nasim Hasan Shah and Saad Saood Jan, JJ |
| Parties | TARIQ BUTT‑‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑‑‑Respondent |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1990 PLP 1090 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)‑‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1990 PLP 1090 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Nasim Hasan Shah and Saad Saood Jan, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1990 PLP 1090 (SCMR) (TARIQ BUTT‑‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑‑‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Ijaz Hussain Batalvi, Advocate Supreme Courts MA. Zafar, Advocate Supreme Court and Manzoor Elahi, Advocate‑on‑Record (absent) for Petitioner.
- Date of hearing: 29th January, 1990.
Headnotes / Summary
(From the judgment dated 17‑12‑1989 of the Lahore High Court, Lahore in Criminal Misc. No. 4452‑B of 1989). ‑‑‑‑S. 497(1), third proviso‑‑‑Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd). Order (4 of 1979), Art. 3/4‑‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3)‑‑‑Bail, grant of‑‑‑No satisfactory explanation was forthcoming as to why the trial had not so far concluded‑‑‑Adjournments made by trial Court were neither sought by accused nor were occasioned by his conduct‑‑‑Benefit of third proviso to 5.497(1), Cr.P.C. was thus extended to accused and he was admitted to bail. Asif Jan Deputy Attorney‑General for the State.
Judgment & Decree
Date of hearing: 29th January, 1990. SAAD SAOOD JAN, J: ‑‑The petitioner was arrested on 9‑10‑1988 when a car driven by him was found to be carrying a very large quantity of heroin. After completion of the investigation, a challan was submitted in the Court of Magistrate exercising enhanced powers under section 30, Criminal Procedure Code. Even though the trial has started, it is clear from the statement made at the Bar by the learned counsel for the petitioner, Deputy Attorney General and the Public Prosecutor in charge of the case, that it is unlikely that it would conclude within a short period.
2. Before us the petitioner seeks bail on the ground that the trial has not yet concluded even though he has been in custody for more than one year. In support of this petition the provisions of third proviso to section 497, Criminal Procedure Code are being invoked. This proviso. reads as follows:‑‑ "Provided further that the Court shall, except where it is of opinion that the delay in the trial of the accused has been occasioned by an act or omission of the accused or any other person acting on his behalf, direct that such person shall be released on bail‑‑ (a) who being accused of any offence not punishable with death has been detained for such offence for a continuous period exceeding one year and whose trial for such offence has not concluded; or Provided further that the provisions of the third proviso to this subsection shall not apply to a previously convicted offender or to a person who, in the opinion of, the Court, is a hardened, desperate or dangerous criminal."
3. There is no satisfactory explanation why the trial has not so far been concluded. Although it is said that some of the adjournments made by the trial Court were at the request of the co‑accused of the petitioner, it is not however the case of the learned Deputy Attorney‑General that any of these adjournments was sought by or occasioned by the conduct of the petitioner.
4. After hearing the learned Deputy Attorney‑General and the learned counsel for the petitioner we see no reason why the benefit of the above mentioned proviso be not extended to the petitioner. Accordingly, we, convert this petition into appeal and direct that the petitioner be released on bail on his executing bail bond in the sum of rupees two lacs, with two sureties in the like amount, to toe satisfaction of the trial Magistrate. N.H.Q./T‑63/S Bail allowed.