1982 P Cr (PLP)
IKRAM-UD-DIN — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent
| Citation | 1982 P Cr (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Munir Khan, J |
| Parties | IKRAM-UD-DIN — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1982 P Cr (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 1982 P Cr (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Muhammad Munir Khan, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1982 P Cr (PLP) (IKRAM-UD-DIN — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Ch. Mahboob Ahmad Khan for Petitioner.
- Date of hearing : 8th July, 1981.
Headnotes / Summary
S. 497
Duty of Court-Speedy trial, right of accused
Complainant indulging in delaying tactics and frustrating power of Court to record evidence by not producing prosecution witnesses
Duty of Court to save from unwarranted prolonged detention-Bail allowed. Khalid Alvi for the State.
Judgment & Decree
Khalid Alvi for the State. Date of hearing : 8th July, 1981. This is an application for bail on behalf of the -petitioner in a case under section 307/326/324/I48/149, P. P. C. registered at Police Station Karor Pacca. The allegations against the petitioner are that he alongwith others in furtherance of common object mace a murderous assault upon Islam-ud -Din and others. It is alleged that the petitioner caused grievous injury on the wrist of Islam-ud-Din.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was arrested on 6th July, 1980. He applied for bail, and the same was rejected by this Court on 2nd November, 1980 vide Cr. M. 3412/B-80. Thereafter, on 29th April, 1981 after about six months of the rejection of his bail application by this Court, the trial Court allowed him bail on the ground of delay in the disposal of the case. Aggrieved by this, the complainant moved an application for the cancellation of bail and the learned Sessions Judge, Multan vide order dated 30th May, 1981 cancelled the bail of the petitioner for the reason that this Court had already rejected the bail of the petitioner on 2nd November, 1980. The learned Sessions Judge was of the view that there was no justification for allowing bail to the petitioner, by the trial Court.
3. Learned counsel for the State submits that the case is heinous one and is punishable with life imprisonment and falls within prohibition. He further submits that in the circumstances of the case, the petitioner is not entitled to bail.
4. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, I am of the view that speedy trial is the right of an accused person and if there is a delay or the complainant indulges in delaying tactics and frustrates the power of the Court to record the evidence by not producing P. Ws, then it would be the duty of Court to come to the rescue of accused person and save him from un-warranted prolonged detention by allowing the concession of .bail. In this case I find that the petitioner was arrested on 6th July. 1980 and so far only three witnesses have been examined (as stated by learned counsel). For the foregoing reasons, the petitioner is allowed bail in the sum of Rs. 10,000 (rupees ten thousand) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of A. C., Multan Bail granted.