2008 PLP 2728 (YLR)
ALLAH BUX — Applicant Versus THE STATE — Respondent
| Citation | 2008 PLP 2728 (YLR) |
| Forum / Court | Karachi |
| Bench Members | Ali Sain Dino Metlo, J |
| Parties | ALLAH BUX — Applicant Versus THE STATE — Respondent |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2008 PLP 2728 (YLR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2008 PLP 2728 (YLR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Karachi bench comprising: Ali Sain Dino Metlo, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2008 PLP 2728 (YLR) (ALLAH BUX — Applicant Versus THE STATE — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- 3. Heard Messrs Abdul Rahman Farooque Pirzada, Advocate for the applicant and Habib-ur-Rahman Shaikh, Assistant Advocate-General. The latter has no objection to the grant of bail as the applicant has remained in custody for about seven years without trial and without any fault on his part in, causing the delay.
- The trial Court decided to proceed with the direct complaint first. However, the complainant failed to produce any witness. Inspite of making all possible efforts trial Court failed to secure attendance of the complainant and his witnesses. The non-bailable warrants repeatedly issued against them were returned unexecuted with the reports that the complainant and his witnesses, having shifted to some unknown place, were not traceable. The complainant's Advocate also gave the same statement.
Headnotes / Summary
S. 497
Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss.302 & 324
Complainant failed to produce any witness in support of his complaint and despite making all possible efforts the Trial Court failed to secure attendance of the complainant and his witnesses, who were reported to have shifted to some unknown place and were not available
Effect
It was the right of every accused to be put to trial within a reasonable time or to be released on bail
Accused could not be kept in custody for an indefinite period without trial
No concept of punishment before conviction existed in system of criminal administration of justice
Accused remained in custody for about seven years, which was substantial part of his life, without trial and he was not at fault in causing the delay
To keep accused further in custody, would amount to abuse of process of law, particularly when the witnesses were not traceable
Accused was released on bail, in circumstances. A.R. Farooque Pirzada for Applicant. Habib-ur-Rehman Shaikh, Assistant A.-G. for the State.
Judgment & Decree
Granted.
2. The date has already expired and the application has become infructuous.
3. Heard Messrs Abdul Rahman Farooque Pirzada, Advocate for the applicant and Habib-ur-Rahman Shaikh, Assistant Advocate-General. The latter has no objection to the grant of bail as the applicant has remained in custody for about seven years without trial and without any fault on his part in, causing the delay. According to the prosecution, on 25-11-2000, at 0015 hours, applicant Allah Bux Leghari, finding deceased Mashooque Ali Chandio, a resident of Larkana District, in compromising position with his wife Zuhran, killed him and wounded his wife with a wooden shaft, in his house situated in Mubarak Colony, Sukkur. In the month of February, 2001, Hafiz Nazir Hussain, brother of the deceased, filed complaint directly in the Court, alleging that four other persons, namely, Muhammad Piral, Deedar, Bajhi and Khair Muhammad were also with the applicant in killing the deceased and that too on a money transaction. The trial Court decided to proceed with the direct complaint first. However, the complainant failed to produce any witness. Inspite of making all possible efforts trial Court failed to secure attendance of the complainant and his witnesses. The non-bailable warrants repeatedly issued against them were returned unexecuted with the reports that the complainant and his witnesses, having shifted to some unknown place, were not traceable. The complainant's Advocate also gave the same statement. It is the right of every accused to be put to trial within a reasonable time or to be released on bail. An accused cannot be kept in custody for indefinite period without trial. There is no concept of punishment before conviction in our system of criminal administration of justice. The applicant has remained in custody for about seven years, which is the substantial part of his life, without trial and he is not at fault in causing the delay. To keep him further in custody will amount to abuse of process of law particularly when the witnesses are not traceable. Accordingly, the applicant is directed to be released on bail on giving one surety in the sum of Rs.400,000 and personal bond in the like amount to the trial Court. H.B.T./A-101/K Bail granted.