1979 P Cr (PLP)
SHUJAAT MIRZA — Applicant Versus THE STATE — Respondent
| Citation | 1979 P Cr (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | Karachi |
| Bench Members | Fakhruddin G. Ebrahim, J |
| Parties | SHUJAAT MIRZA — Applicant Versus THE STATE — Respondent |
| Primary Law | (b) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1979 P Cr (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: (b) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1979 P Cr (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the Karachi bench comprising: Fakhruddin G. Ebrahim, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1979 P Cr (PLP) (SHUJAAT MIRZA — Applicant Versus THE STATE — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Date of hearing : 2nd January, 1978.
Headnotes / Summary
S. 497--Bail - Delay-Neither caused by prosecution nor amounting to abuse of process of Court-Held, no ground for bail-[Delay].
S. 497-Bail-Evidence-Circumstantial evidence can be basis of conviction-Contention regarding circumstantial evidence, being very weak-Question, held, cannot be appraised at bail stage-Prosecu tion not responsible for delay in trial of case, such delay not cause of process of Court-Bail refused.--[Evidence]. Choudhry Iftikhar Ahmad for Applicant. Usman Ghani Rashid, Asstt. A.-G. for the State.
Judgment & Decree
FAKHRUDDIN G. EBRAHIM, J.-The applicant is charged with an offence under section 302/307, P. P. C. and in support of this bail applica tion on his behalf it is firstly urged that according to the prosecution itself the evidence against the applicant is circumstantial only and secondly, there has been considerable delay, for though the applicant was arrested as far back as early 1974 the trial is yet to commence. The learned III Additional Sessions Judge, Karachi in a well-reasoned order found no substance in these two grounds and rejected the bail applica tion. For the same reasons I find no merit in this application. 3t is l not denied that a person can be convicted on the basis of circumstantial evidence but it was contended that this evidence is very weak in the present case but then it is not open to me at this stage to appraise the; evidence for any finding given is bound to embarrass the trial. As regards the delay, undoubtedly four years have passed and no progress has been) made in the case but the prosecution cannot be blamed for the same and it cannot therefore, be said that the delay caused amounts to an abuse of process of Court. While dismissing this application, I however, direct the trial Court to record the evidence of the material witnesses, within two months from the receipt of this order. Order accordingly.