2002 P Cr (PLP)
KAMAL NASIR‑‑‑Applicant Versus THE STATE‑‑‑Respondent
| Citation | 2002 P Cr (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | Karachi |
| Bench Members | Wahid Bux Brohi, J |
| Parties | KAMAL NASIR‑‑‑Applicant Versus THE STATE‑‑‑Respondent |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2002 P Cr (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2002 P Cr (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the Karachi bench comprising: Wahid Bux Brohi, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2002 P Cr (PLP) (KAMAL NASIR‑‑‑Applicant Versus THE STATE‑‑‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Date of hearing: 8th November, 2001.
Headnotes / Summary
Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)‑‑‑ ‑‑‑‑S. 497(1) third proviso‑‑‑Bail, grant of‑‑‑Delay in trial‑‑‑Continuous detention of accused had exceeded one year‑‑‑Nobody from police who effected arrest of accused had received any injury during the incident‑‑ Material witnesses were to be examined within stipulated period, but even the charge had not been framed so far‑‑‑No doubt Court had made efforts, but compliance of directions of High Court to record evidence of material witnesses, within three months could not ultimately be made for which there was no default on part of the accused‑‑‑Bail, was granted to accused in circumstances'. Gul Hassan Penhyar v. State 1997 SCMR 390; Muhammad Aslam v. State 1999 SCMR 2147 and Jadeed Gul v. State 1998 SCMR 1124 ref. Agha Zafir Ali for Applicant. Sharafat Ali Khan for the State.
Judgment & Decree
The main ground taken in support of the bail plea is that while dismissing the application for bail instituted by the applicant this Court by order, dated 30‑3‑2001 in Criminal Bail No.228 of 2001 directed the trial Court to record evidence of material witnesses namely Haji Waris, Abbas Ali and Asif within three months, but this direction could not be complied with by the trial Court and although an explanation has been offered by the trial Court in the report submitted to this Court recently, but nothing can be made out there from to ascribe any default to the applicant in examining those witnesses. Learned counsel for the applicant in support of his contention relied on Gul Hassan Penhyar v. State 1997 SCMR 390, Muhammad Aslam v. State 1999 SCMR 2147 and Jadeed Gul v. State 1998 SCMR 1124. Secondly, the applicant was arrested on 2‑9‑2000 and has completed a period of continuous detention of more than one year as such he is entitled to grant of bail on account of statutory delay.
2. Learned State Counsel frankly conceded that both the grounds are available to the applicant as the law laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court is clear on this point, while the continuous detention of applicant has also exceeded one year.
3. In view of the above contention it is needless to go into the minute details, however, it is to be noted that in this incident nobody from the police who effected arrest of the applicant had received any injury. The material witnesses were to be examined within the stipulated period but even the charge has not yet been framed. No doubt the Court has made efforts but the compliance of the directions of this Court could not ultimately be made for which there is no default on the part of applicant. The other ground that applicant has also completed a period of one year detention is, however, immaterial as it was not taken in the trial Court.
4. Nevertheless in the circumstances, learned State Council rightly conceded to grant of bail. The application is allowed and the applicant be grant on bail on furnishing surety in the sum of Rs. 1,00,000 and executing P.R. Bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of trial Court. H.B.T./K58/K Bail granted.