2016 PLP 1360 (SCMR)
JAMIL RAZA @ JEELU — Petitioner Versus The STATE and others — Respondents
| Citation | 2016 PLP 1360 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Gulzar Ahmed and Manzoor Ahmad Malik, JJ |
| Parties | JAMIL RAZA @ JEELU — Petitioner Versus The STATE and others — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2016 PLP 1360 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2016 PLP 1360 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Gulzar Ahmed and Manzoor Ahmad Malik, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2016 PLP 1360 (SCMR) (JAMIL RAZA @ JEELU — Petitioner Versus The STATE and others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Malik Asif Ahmad Nasuana, Advocate Supreme Court for Petitioner.
- Mazhar Sher Awan, Additional P.-G. for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 23rd May, 2016.
- Mian Parvez, Advocate Supreme Court for the Complainant.
Headnotes / Summary
(Against the order of the Lahore High Court, Lahore dated 7-3-2016 passed in Criminal Miscellaneous No.721-B of 2016)
S. 497
Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 302, 34 & 109
Qatl-i-amd, common intention, abetment
High Court while dismissing the bail petition filed by the accused on ground of statutory delay in conclusion of trial had not given any observation/finding to the effect as to who, either the accused or the prosecution, was responsible for the delay in conclusion of trial
Both parties before the Supreme Court consented to the fact that it would be reasonable if the impugned order of High Court was set aside and the case was remanded to the High Court
Supreme Court set aside the impugned order of High Court accordingly and directed that the bail application shall be deemed to be pending before the High Court for decision afresh. Mian Parvez, Advocate Supreme Court for the Complainant.
Judgment & Decree
MANZOOR AHMAD MALIK, J.
Petitioner seeks post, arrest bail in case FIR No 835 of 2013, dated 03.11.2013, offence under sections 302, 109, 34, P.P.C., registered at P.S. Bhikhi, District Sheikhupura.
2. We have noted that the learned High Court vide the impugned order dismissed the post arrest bail application, filed by the petitioner or statutory ground, in the following terms:- "
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is behind the bars since 25.11.2013 and that the conclusion of the trial was not possible in near future and the prosecution is solely responsible for delay in conclusion of trial. As far as contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is entitled to be released on bail on statutory delay in conclusion of the trial has not force. As on expiry of statutory period right of release on statutory delay in conclusion of trial does not arise automatically. The specific role attributed to the petitioner reflects that the petitioner had committed the offence in desperate manner, which brings the case of the petitioner within the mischief of the exceptional Clause of the 4th proviso of section 497(1) of Cr.P.C.
4. For the foregoing reasons, circumstances, the petitioner has failed to make out a prima facie case of his enlargement on bail on the ground of statutory delay in conclusion of the trial. This bail petition, therefore, is found to be devoid of any merits and is hereby dismissed."
3. From the tenor of the afore-mentioned order, it is quite clear that the learned High Court while dismissing the bail petition filed by the petitioner on statutory ground has not given any observation/finding to the effect as to who, either the petitioner or the prosecution, is responsible for the delay in conclusion of trial. Confronted with this, the learned counsel for the complainant and the learned Law Officer do not join issue and submit that it would be reasonable if the impugned order is set aside and the case is remanded back to the learned High Court for decision afresh, after hearing both the parties.
4. In this view of the matter, with consent of both the learned counsel, the impugned order of the learned High Court is set aside, Crl. Misc. No. 721-B of 2016 shall be deemed to be pending before the learned High Court for decision afresh, after hearing both the parties and after attending to the facts and circumstances of the case particularly the ground of statutory delay urged by the petitioner. The parties are directed to appear before the learned Judge in Chambers of the High Court on 06.06.2016.
5. Disposed of in terms noted above. MWA/J-3/SC Order accordingly.