2001 P Cr (PLP)
Dr. GHULAM SAGHIR‑‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑‑‑Respondent
| Citation | 2001 P Cr (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Khawaja Muhammad Sharif, J |
| Parties | Dr. GHULAM SAGHIR‑‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑‑‑Respondent |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2001 P Cr (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)‑‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2001 P Cr (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Khawaja Muhammad Sharif, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2001 P Cr (PLP) (Dr. GHULAM SAGHIR‑‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑‑‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Sh. Safdar Hussain for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑‑S. 497(1), third proviso‑‑‑Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S.302‑‑‑Bail, grant of‑‑‑Two years had passed but not a single witness had been examined‑‑‑Case against the accused was covered by the third proviso to S.497(1), Cr.P.C.‑‑ Accused was admitted to bail. 1997 MLD 1591; 1997 MLD 1255 and 1991 PCr.LJ 254 ref. Muhammad Rafique for the State.
Judgment & Decree
1997 MLD 1591; 1997 MLD 1255 and 1991 PCr.LJ 254 ref. Sh. Safdar Hussain for Petitioner. Muhammad Rafique for the State. Case was registered against the petitioner and three others for committing the murder of Khalid Mehmood. The allegation against the petitioner was that he was armed with mouzer while attack was opened by Malik Nisar who gave first fire hitting on the left thigh of Khalid Mehmood deceased and it was followed by Dr. Ghulam Sagheer also by firing with mouzer hitting on the right thigh, leg and other part of the deceased Khalid Mehmood who died and a minor boy Sajjad was also injured in this occurrence. The accused was seen by Jehangir and Liaqat when he was running from the place of occurrence. The motive was that the deceased was a P.W. against Malik Nisar etc.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was arrested on 13‑1‑1999, that two years have passed but the trial has not been concluded so far, that even the charge has not been framed. He submits that the case of the petitioner is covered by the third proviso of section 497(1). Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon 1997 MLD 1591, 1997 MLD 1255 and 1991 PCr.LJ254.
3. On the other hand learned State Counsel opposes the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner.
4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties, and also have gone through the F.I.R. order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge. Three co- accused of the petitioner were found to be innocent but later on they all were murdered. Now petitioner is the main accused in this case. Case was fixed for distribution of copies on 29‑1‑2001 and now the case is fixed for evidence on 1‑3‑2001. Two years have passed but not a single witness has been examined so far. Keeping in view the above circumstances, I am of the considered view that case of the petitioner is covered by the third proviso of section 497(1), Cr.P.C. This petition is accepted and the petitioner is allowed bail in the sum of Rs.1,00,000 with two sureties in the like amount to the satisfaction of trial Court.
5. It may be noted here that if during the course of trial or on any date of hearing the petitioner do not produce his counsel or absents himself, learned Additional Sessions Judge can cancel his bail: With these observations this petition is disposed of. H.B.T./G‑97/L Bail granted/Order accordingly.