1995 P Cr (PLP)
NAJAF — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent
| Citation | 1995 P Cr (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | NAJAF — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1995 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 1995 P Cr (PLP)?
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: 1995 P Cr (PLP) (NAJAF — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Altaf Ibrahim Oureshi for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
S. 497(1), third proviso
Penal Code (XL.V of 1860), 5.302/34
Case of accused was not distinguishable from that of co-accused even on merits who had already been released on bail by Sessions Court on statutory ground
Accused was behind the bars for the last about three years without trial
Judgment & Decree
Altaf Ibrahim Oureshi for Petitioner. Anwaar-ul-Haq for the State. The petitioner alongwith his co-accused is facing trial for the allegation of committing an offence under section 302/34, P.P.C. in a case registered against him on 11-10-1990 with Police Station Harrapa, District Sahiwal.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that in spite of lapse of about three years, the trial has not been commenced so far, what to speak of its conclusion within the statutory period. He argued that Noor Muhammad, the main accused in the case has already been allowed the concession of bail on statutory ground by the learned Sessions Judge, Sahiwal vide order, dated 19-10-1992. The bail application of the petitioner was, however, dismissed vide order, dated 5-4-1993 on the ground of non-availability of the statutory ground for reason of deletion of 3rd proviso to section 497(1), Cr.P.C. by virtue of Ordinance XV of 1992 which is 'no more in field and the petitioner is entitled for the concession of bail.
3. The learned State counsel has not been able to distinguish the case of present petitioner to that of Noor Muhammad who was extended the concession of bail on statutory ground by the learned Additional Sessions Judge.
4. The petitioner is behind the bar for the last about three years without trial. The 3rd proviso section 497(1), Cr.P.C. is again on the statute book after lapse of Ordinance XV of 1992 and the statutory ground is now available to the petitioner to be pressed for grant of bail. The case against the petitioner is otherwise not distinguishable to that of Noor Muhammad, his co-accused even on merits.
5. This petition is, therefore, allowed and the 1,petitioner is admitted to bail subject to his furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs.50,000 with two sureties in the like amount to the satisfaction of A.C./Duty Magistrate, Sahiwal. N.H.Q./N-271/L Bail allowed.