1982 P Cr (PLP)
ILLAHI BUX AND ANOTHER‑Applicants Versus THE STATE‑Respondent
| Citation | 1982 P Cr (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | Karachi |
| Bench Members | Ghous Ali Shah, J |
| Parties | ILLAHI BUX AND ANOTHER‑Applicants 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 Karachi bench comprising: Ghous Ali Shah, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1982 P Cr (PLP) (ILLAHI BUX AND ANOTHER‑Applicants Versus THE STATE‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑ S. 497‑Bail‑‑Delay, effect of‑‑-[Murder‑case] --‑ Ever since their arrest applicants continuously in custody and their period of custody exceeding 2 years while conclusion of trial not yet in sight‑No act or omission alleged against accused or any one else on their behalf in delaying trial‑Applicants, held, entitled to bail, in circumstances.‑[Delay]. Assardas for Applicant. Amanullah Qureshi for A.‑G. for the State. Faroog Pirzada for Complainant.
Judgment & Decree
Faroog Pirzada for Complainant. The only point raised by the learned counsel is that trial of the case has not yet concluded and the applicants have remained in custody for more than two years. He further contends that three witnesses have so far been examined and there remain many more to be examined, He argues that ever since their arrest on 30th September, 1977, they have continously remained in custody and their period of custody as such exceeds two years. He refers to amendment of section 497, Criminal Procedure Code, by Ordinance LXXI of 1979, whereby a proviso is added to subsection (1), which reads as under:‑‑ "In the said Code, in section 497, in subsection (1) in the Second Proviso, for the full stop at the end a colon shall be substituted and thereafter the following proviso shall be added, namely : "Provided further that the Court shall, except where it is of opinion that the delay in the trial of the accused has been occasioned by an act or omission of the accused or any other person acting on his behalf direct that any person shall be released on bail‑ (a) Who, being accused of any offence not punishable with death, has been detained for such offence for a continuous period exceed ing one year and whose trial for such offence has not concluded or (b) Who, being accused of any offence punishable with death has been detained for such offence for a continuous period exceeding two years and whose trial for such offence hat not concluded," He therefore argues that applicants are entitled to be released on bail in view of the above said amendment of section 497, Cr. P. C. The learned counsel for the State concedes to this mandatory legal position and bas no objection to grant of bail. Since the new amendment has been incorporated in section
497. Cr. P. C. and no act or omission has been alleged against the applicants or any one else on their behalf in delaying the trial, the applicant are entitled to bail. Therefore keeping new amendment in view, I grant bail to all the applicants who shall be released on bail subject to their furnishing solvent sureties in the sum of Rs. 20,000 each and P. R. bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of the 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Sukkur. Bail granted.