2012 PLP 1180 (MLD)
DANISH AHMED — Petitioner Versus THE STATE through Chairman NAB — Respondent
| Citation | 2012 PLP 1180 (MLD) |
| Forum / Court | Sindh |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | DANISH AHMED — Petitioner Versus THE STATE through Chairman NAB — Respondent |
| Primary Law | National Accountability Ordinance (XVIII of 1999) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2012 PLP 1180 (MLD)?
This judgment primarily cites: National Accountability Ordinance (XVIII of 1999) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2012 PLP 1180 (MLD)?
The case was heard and decided by the Sindh bench comprising: N/A.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2012 PLP 1180 (MLD) (DANISH AHMED — Petitioner Versus THE STATE through Chairman NAB — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Muhammad Muneer Ahmed for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
S.9(b)
Constitution of Pakistan, Art. 199
Constitutional petition
Accused had earlier filed a constitutional petition before the High Court seeking bail, which was dismissed with a direction to the Trial Court to decide the matter within two months
Trial Court failed to conclude the matter within two months
Contention of accused was that eighty (80) witnesses had been listed by the prosecution out of which only sixteen (16) witnesses had been examined so far
Accused was in jail since last one year, nine months and fifteen days and the case had not been decided by the Trial Court till date, in spite of directions of the High Court
Prosecution had not argued that any delay in concluding the trial was attributable to the accused
Constitutional petition was allowed and accused was enlarged on bail with directions to the Trial Court to conclude the trial within four months.
Judgment & Decree
Reference No. 5 of 2010 was filed by NAB against the present petitioner. The allegation against the petitioner was that while he was appointed on a clerical post of Key Punch Operator, he issued fake offers/appointment orders to various individuals for their appointment in various public sector/departments and in this way received illegal gratification to the tune of Rs.6,12,
000. The petitioner filed C.P. No. D-1187 of 2011 seeking bail from this Court which was dismissed vide order dated 5-10-2011 with the direction to the trial Court to decide the matter within two months. Admittedly, trial Court failed to conclude the matter till todate thereafter the petitioner has filed the present petition for bail, afresh. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that 80 witnesses have been listed by the prosecution to be examined by the trial Court, out of which only 16 witnesses have been so far examined. He further states that on conclusion the petitioner shall be punished under section 420, P.P.C. and no offence under NAB Ordinance is made out. The petitioner is in jail since last one year nine months and fifteen days and the case has not been decided by the trial Court till to date, in spite of directions of this Court. In support his contention the learned counsel has relied upon the case of Muhammad Naeem Anwar v. National Accountability Bureau and others, PLD 2008 SC 645, wherein the cases of Khan Afsandyar Wali v. Federation of Pakistan PLD 2001 SC 607; Muhammad Saeed Mehdi v. State 2002 SCMR 282 and Aga Jehanzeb v. NAV and others 2005 SCMR 1666 have been relied upon. On the other hand, the learned Senior Prosecutor NAB submits that seven more witnesses shall be examined. He has however, not argued that the two months given to the trial Court to conclude the matter, in terms of order dated 5-10-2011 any delay is attributed on the part of the petitioner. In the circumstances, we are of the view that the conclusion of the trial may take some time. The petitioner is in jail since last one year nine months and fifteen days, hence the petitioner is entitled to be enlarged on bail. Accordingly, the petitioner is granted bail subject to furnishing solvent surety in sum of Rs.6,00,000 (Rupees Six Lacs) and PR Bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court. The trial Court is directed to conclude the matter within four months. M.W.A./D-5/K Petition allowed.