1998 PLP 2055 (MLD)
SHAFAQAT ALI — Petitioner Versus STATE — Respondent
| Citation | 1998 PLP 2055 (MLD) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | SHAFAQAT ALI — Petitioner Versus STATE — Respondent |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1998 PLP 2055 (MLD)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1998 PLP 2055 (MLD)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: N/A.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1998 PLP 2055 (MLD) (SHAFAQAT ALI — Petitioner Versus STATE — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Altaf Ibrahim Qureshi for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
S. 497(1), third proviso'
Penal Code (XLV of 1860), 5.302/34
Bail on the ground of statutory delay
Accused was behind the bars for the last two years and ten months and the trial was still at the stage of evidence with no expectation of its early conclusion
Accused had no contribution in the unjustified delay in the conclusion of trial
Reasons on which bail had been refused to accused by Trial Court were not forceful
Accused having become entitled to the benefit of the statutory right of grant of bail, was accorded the same in circumstances.
Judgment & Decree
Zahid Hussain v. State PLD 1995 SC 49 ref. Altaf Ibrahim Qureshi for Petitioner. The petitioner is facing trial for the murder charge before the learned Sessions Judge, Sahiwal, in a case under section 302/34, P.P.C. registered against him through FIR. No.277 of 1994 dated 10-7-1994 at Police Station Saddar Sahiwal for the allegation of committing the murder of one Muhammad Akram. The charge having framed about 10 months earlier the prosecution evidence has not yet been recorded in toto and case is now fixed for 29-9-1997 for the remaining evidence.
2. The petitioner has been refused statutory benefit for the grant of bail on the ground that he was involved in three other criminal cases relating to F.I.Rs. Nos.247of 1994, 220 of 1994 and 223 of 1994 under sections 324/34 and 337, P.P.C. respectively.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that one case was compromised and in remaining two cases, the petitioner has been acquitted under section 249-A, Cr.P.C. and that presently except the present case no other case is pending either in the investigation or before any Court against the petitioner. He placing on record a copy of the order sheet of the trial Court contended that only on two occasions the defence counsel sought adjournments whereas on the remaining 16 dates the case could not proceed either because on non-availability of the witnesses or the presiding officer and, therefore, the delay is not attributable to the petitioner. He with reference to Zahid Hussain v. State (PLD 1995 Supreme Court 49) contended that the statutory right of the petitioner for the grant of bail under clause (b) of third proviso of subsection (1) of section 497, Cr.P.C. cannot be withheld in ordinary circumstances.
4. No one appeared on behalf of the State to oppose this petition.
5. Having considered the unjustified delay in the conclusion of the trial without any contribution of the petitioner and the reasons on the basis of which he has been refused the statutory right of grant of bail by the learned Sessions Judge, the contention of the learned counsel that the grant of bail on statutory ground cannot be refused is not refutable. The petitioner is behind the bars continuously for the last 2 years and 10 months and the trial is still at the stage of evidence and there being no expectation of early conclusion of the trial, the petitioner is entitled to be extended the benefit of the statutory right of grant of bail. The petitioner is allowed bail subject to his furnishing bail bond in the sum of Rs. one Lac with two sureties in the like amount each to the satisfaction of the Trial Court. N. H Q /S-233/L Bail allowed