1975 PLP 156 (SCMR)
MUBARAK AND 3 OTHERS — Petitioners Versus THE STATE — Respondent
| Citation | 1975 PLP 156 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | MUBARAK AND 3 OTHERS — Petitioners Versus THE STATE — Respondent |
| Primary Law | Penal Code (XLV of 1860) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1975 PLP 156 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Penal Code (XLV of 1860) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1975 PLP 156 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: N/A.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1975 PLP 156 (SCMR) (MUBARAK AND 3 OTHERS — Petitioners Versus THE STATE — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- M.I. Memon, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioners.
- Date of hearing : 4th September 1974.
- M.I. Memon, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioners.
- Mr. M. I. Memon, learned Advocate‑on‑Record, for the petitioners, has contended that the committal proceedings are pending for the last 14 months and no progress has been made in spite of the directions issued by the High Court. He, therefore, contended that this was a fit case in which this Court should interfere and grant bail to the petitioners. The contention of the learned counsel has not impressed us. It is true that the case has made no progress but this is not on account of any fault on the part of the Magistrate. The petitioners could not be produced before the Magistrate as there was no arrangement with the jail authorities to escort them under proper guard. In our opinion, in these circumstances it would be sufficient if a direction is issued to the Jail authorities to produce the peti tioners before the Magistrate on the day of the hearing of the commitment proceedings. We would further direct the Magistrate concerned to dispose of the committal proceedings within six months from the date of this order. In case, the commitment proceedings are not completed within this time, it will be open to the petitioners to move the High Court for bail. Subject to this remark, the petition is dismissed.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment and order of the High Court of Sind Baluchistan, Karachi, dated the 10th June 1974, in Bail Application No. 301 of 1974). -- S. 302-Bail-Cocrlmitment proceedings, delay in-Delay not on account of any fault of Magistrate-Magistrate, however, ordered to dispose of committal proceedings within six months-Bail, mean while, refused. Nemo for the State.
Judgment & Decree
WAHEEDDUDIN AHMAD, J.‑The petitioners are facing commitment pro ceedings in the Court of learned Civil Judge and First Class Magistrate, Shikarpur, in respect of offences alleged to have been committed by them under section 302/307/148/147, P.P.C. It is alleged that as a result of an incident which occurred on the 21st June, 1973, one Gul Mohammad lost his life as a result of fire‑arm injuries. Behram and Sharabat also sustained serious gunshot injuries, in the said Incident. The petitioners moved an application for bail under section 498, Cr. P. C. before the High Court of Sind & Baluchistan, Karachi. The sole ground on which the bail was sought is that there has been no progress in the committal proceedings and not a single witness has been examined. It was stated that the petitioners were challaned almost a year back. A learned Single Judge of the High Court considered the bail application of the petitioner and dismissed it by order dated the 10th June, 1974. A direc tion was issued to the Civil Judge and First Class Magistrate, Shikarpur before whom the committal proceedings are pending, to take necessary steps to ensure the attendance of the petitioners before him and further to take all possible steps for the early completion of the committal inquiry. The petitioners seek permission to file an appeal against the said order. Mr. M. I. Memon, learned Advocate‑on‑Record, for the petitioners, has contended that the committal proceedings are pending for the last 14 months and no progress has been made in spite of the directions issued by the High Court. He, therefore, contended that this was a fit case in which this Court should interfere and grant bail to the petitioners. The contention of the learned counsel has not impressed us. It is true that the case has made no progress but this is not on account of any fault on the part of the Magistrate. The petitioners could not be produced before the Magistrate as there was no arrangement with the jail authorities to escort them under proper guard. In our opinion, in these circumstances it would be sufficient if a direction is issued to the Jail authorities to produce the peti tioners before the Magistrate on the day of the hearing of the commitment proceedings. We would further direct the Magistrate concerned to dispose of the committal proceedings within six months from the date of this order. In case, the commitment proceedings are not completed within this time, it will be open to the petitioners to move the High Court for bail. Subject to this remark, the petition is dismissed. Leave refused.