2007K2536 (PLP)
DEEDAR — Applicant Versus THE STATE — Respondent
| Citation | 2007K2536 (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | Karachi |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | DEEDAR — Applicant Versus THE STATE — Respondent |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2007K2536 (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 2007K2536 (PLP)?
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: 2007K2536 (PLP) (DEEDAR — Applicant Versus THE STATE — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Headnotes / Summary
S. 497
Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss.302, 148 & 149
No fault was on part of accused to delay the trial
Case was registered in the year 1993, but prosecution witnesses were not traceable
Even charge had not been framed
No useful purpose would be served by keeping accused in jail
Case of accused fell within the meaning of hardship as no fault was on part of accused to keep himself absent from the trial
Two co-accused were granted bail
Judgment & Decree
MUNIB AHMED KHAN, J.
The learned counsel has contended that the applicant was arrested on 15-3-2002 as apparent from the Court diaries, he has filed, but since he was facing trial in another case and was confined at Nara Jail therefore, jail authorities did not produce him before the trial Court at Kamber despite issuance of production order, therefore, there is no fault on his part to delay the trial. He submits that the case pertains to the year, 1993 and according to the diaries of the trial Court specially diary, dated 11-2-1998, prosecution witnesses are not traceable, therefore no useful purpose will be served by keeping the accused in jail. He submits that two co-accused Din Muhammad and Allsher were granted bail by the trial Court at the relevant time which was permissible under the law at that time and that two co-accused have been died while only the applicant is in jail. He further submits that even the charge has not been framed in the case. The learned State counsel has half-heartedly opposed the bail on the ground that applicant has been produced from the Nara Jail on 28-8-2006 and from that date case is proceeding but he admits that charge has not been framed nor the witnesses are traceable. After hearing and keeping in view the factual position coming on record specially non-availability of the witnesses as well as age of the case as it was registered in 1993 and that the stage of the case as charge even has not been framed the case of the accused fall within the meaning of hardship as there is no fault on his part to keep himself absent from the trial as his presence could be ordered by strict orders by the trial Court. In the circumstances accused is admitted to bail in the sum of Rs.200,000 and P.R. bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of trial Court. H.B.T./D-2/K Bail granted.