1993 P Cr (PLP)

Mazhar Iqbal Sidhu for Petitioner. Haji Rizwan Ahmad Qureshi for the Complainant. Maqsood Ahmad Khan for the State. Petitioner is one of the accused in case F.I.R. No.413, dated 2-8-1991 registered at Police Station City Sheikhupura under sections 324, 148, 149, P.P.C. He was arrested on 3-8-1991. His bail application was rejected by the trial Court and eventually by this Court vide order, dated 25-3-1992. The learned trial Magistrate, granted him bail on 9-6-1992. The complainant party moved the Court of Session for the cancellation of his bail and a learned Additional District Judge at Sheikhupura cancelled his bail on 9-8-1992. The trial Magistrate again granted him bail on statutory ground on 5-11-1992 and on an application moved by the complainant party, the learned Additional District Judge, Sheikhupura again cancelled it on 1-3-1993. It is against this order that the petitioner has now approached this Court, without surrendering to the order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge. He is on interim bail.

2. The main contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that Code of Criminal Procedure (Second Amendment) Ordinance, 1992, had come into force on 16-11-1992 and since it had no retrospective effect, it did not operate against the order, dated 5-11-1992, by which the learned trial Magistrate had granted him bail on statutory ground. According to the learned counsel, the petitioner has been in the lock-up for a period of more than 13 months before he was released on bail by the trial Magistrate on 5-11-1992.

3. The application has been opposed on behalf of the State as also by the learned counsel for the complainant on the ground that the abovementioned Ordinance has retrospective effect on account of its being procedural and the bail of the petitioner granted to him by the trial Magistrate on statutory ground was rightly cancelled by the learned Additional Sessions Judge.

4. When the bail of the petitioner had been dismissed by this Court, vide its order, dated 25-3-1992, the trial Magistrate should not have granted him bail on 9-6-1992 and he will have to account for it. Despite all this, the fact remains that the petitioner has been in the lock-up for the accumulative period of more than 13 months and the trial of the case is said to be still at the initial stage, having no prospects of its early conclusion. For this reason the interim bail already granted to the petitioner by this Court is confirmed on the bail bonds already furnished by him. N.H.Q./M-969/L Order accordingly.