2006 PLP 178 (MLD)
SHABOO alias ALI KHAN — Applicant Versus THE STATE — Respondent
| Citation | 2006 PLP 178 (MLD) |
| Forum / Court | Karachi |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | SHABOO alias ALI KHAN — Applicant Versus THE STATE — Respondent |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2006 PLP 178 (MLD)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2006 PLP 178 (MLD)?
The case was heard and decided by the Karachi bench comprising: N/A.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2006 PLP 178 (MLD) (SHABOO alias ALI KHAN — Applicant Versus THE STATE — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Contentions of Mr. Jai Jai Veshnu, Advocate for the applicant, is that co-accused Abdul Rahim and Suhail Ahmed have been granted bail by this Court in Criminal Bail Application No.550 of 2004, vide order dated 23-11-2004. According to him, the case of the applicant is identical to that of co-accused Abdul- Rahim and Suhail Ahmed, who have been granted bail by this Court. He further contended that the applicant was arrested on 13-9-2001 and till date excepting framing of the charge in the case no further progress has been made. Referring to the case diaries placed on record, learned counsel further contended that even after the grant of bail to co-accused Abdul Rahim and Suhail Ahmed, the prosecution has failed to produce any witness. He, therefore, urged that it is a fit case, where the applicant has to be enlarged on bail on the ground of hardship as well as on the principle of rule of consistency.
Headnotes / Summary
S. 497
Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 302, 148 & 149
Accused after his arrest on 13-9-2001, had remained in continuous custody without any progress in the case, so far only charge had been framed
Case diaries had revealed that even after grant of bail to co accused, prosecution had not been able to produce a single witness
Such conduct on part of prosecution was shocking
No one could be detained in jail for indefinite period
Accused having been able to make out a case for bail, he was released on bail.
Judgment & Decree
MUHAMMAD AFZAL SOOMRO, J.
Applicant Shaboo alias Ali Khan Shaikh seeks bail in Crime No. 141 of 2001 of Police Station New Foujadari, under sections 302, 148, 149, P.P.C. on the sole ground of hardship. The bail plea of the applicant was declined by the learned IV-Additional Sessions Judge, Shikarpur vide order dated 16-3-2005. Contentions of Mr. Jai Jai Veshnu, Advocate for the applicant, is that co-accused Abdul Rahim and Suhail Ahmed have been granted bail by this Court in Criminal Bail Application No.550 of 2004, vide order dated 23-11-2004. According to him, the case of the applicant is identical to that of co-accused Abdul- Rahim and Suhail Ahmed, who have been granted bail by this Court. He further contended that the applicant was arrested on 13-9-2001 and till date excepting framing of the charge in the case no further progress has been made. Referring to the case diaries placed on record, learned counsel further contended that even after the grant of bail to co-accused Abdul Rahim and Suhail Ahmed, the prosecution has failed to produce any witness. He, therefore, urged that it is a fit case, where the applicant has to be enlarged on bail on the ground of hardship as well as on the principle of rule of consistency. Learned State counsel in view of the above legal position raised no objection to the grant of bail. I have considered the contentions of the learned counsel and perused the record including the case diaries. The record reveals that the applicant after his arrest on 13-9-2001 has remained in continuous custody without any progress. Only the charge has been framed in the case. The perusal of case diaries reveals that even after grant of bail to co-accused by this Court the prosecution has not been able to produce a single witness. Such a conduct on the part of the prosecution is shocking and it is settled law that no one can be detained in jail for indefinite period. In the circumstances, I have come to the conclusion that the applicant has been able to make out a case for bail, which is granted. The applicant be released on bail provided he furnishes surety in the sum of Rs.1,00,000 and P.R. bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of trial Court. Criminal Bail Application No.S-383 of 2005 stands disposed of along with listed application. H.B.T./S-150/K?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Bail granted.