1975 P Cr (PLP)
Before Shameem Hussain Kadri, J Versus THE STATE‑Respondent
| Citation | 1975 P Cr (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Shameem Hussain Kadri, J |
| Parties | Before Shameem Hussain Kadri, J Versus THE STATE‑Respondent |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1975 P Cr (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1975 P Cr (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Shameem Hussain Kadri, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1975 P Cr (PLP) (Before Shameem Hussain Kadri, J Versus THE STATE‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Muhammad Siddique Chughtal for Petitioners.
Headnotes / Summary
S Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) ‑‑ S. 498‑Bail‑No evidence recorded within 11 months since arrest of accused‑Case being adjourned due to non‑production of accused, transfer of Enquiry Magistrate and lethargic attitude of prosecution towards production of witnesses‑Accused granted bail in circumstances of case‑Enquiry Magistrate, held, may pass proper order regarding bail after completion of commitment proceedings. Farooq Badar for the State.
Judgment & Decree
Criminal Miscellaneous No. 262/B of 1974, decided on 28th February 1974. --S Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) ‑‑ S. 498‑Bail‑No evidence recorded within 11 months since arrest of accused‑Case being adjourned due to non‑production of accused, transfer of Enquiry Magistrate and lethargic attitude of prosecution towards production of witnesses‑Accused granted bail in circumstances of case‑Enquiry Magistrate, held, may pass proper order regarding bail after completion of commitment proceedings. Muhammad Siddique Chughtal for Petitioners. Farooq Badar for the State. The petitioners in this case have applied for release on bail under section 498, Cr. P. C. mainly on the ground of delay in the commitment proceedings. Notice was issued to the counsel for the State, who has appeared and has frankly admitted that no evidence has so far been recorded although the occurrence took place on 8‑3‑1973. The ac.,‑used were arrested on 29th of the same month. Challan was put in the Court on 23‑7‑1973. For three times the accused could not be brought before the Magistrate and then for one reason or the other, either the Magistrate was away on leave or the witnesses were absent the case had to be adjourned. The case was transferred from one Inquiry Magistrate to the other and this also took a period of ten days. There are 19 witnesses in the inquiry. ‑ The Magistrate has himself said in his report that the inquiry could not he completed due to the lethargic attitude of the production of witnesses by the prosecution. In these circumstances the petitioners cannot be allowed to remain behind the bars for no fault of theirs. Both of them shall be released on bail provided each one of them furnished a security in the sum of Rs. 10,000 (Rupees Ten Thousand) with one surety each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Assistant Commissioner, Chunian. It shall be open for the Inquiry Magistrate to pass such order which he deems proper in regard to the matter of bail after the completion of the commitment proceedings.