2019 PLP 626 (YLR)
MUHAMMAD WASEEM alias VICKY — Petitioner Versus The STATE and others — Respondents
| Citation | 2019 PLP 626 (YLR) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Miss Aalia Neelum, J |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD WASEEM alias VICKY — Petitioner Versus The STATE and others — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2019 PLP 626 (YLR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2019 PLP 626 (YLR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Miss Aalia Neelum, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2019 PLP 626 (YLR) (MUHAMMAD WASEEM alias VICKY — Petitioner Versus The STATE and others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Tauqeer Hassan Butt for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
S. 497
Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss.302, 324, 148, 149 & 109
Qatl-i-amd, attempt to commit qatl-i-amd, rioting when armed with deadly weapon, unlawful assembly, abetment
Statutory ground
Scope
Gravity of allegation; liberty of the individual
Scope
Accused and co-accused allegedly made collective firing resulting into murder of brother and Bhabhi of the complainant and two persons were also injured
Accused contended that delay in conclusion of trial could not be attributed to him while he had been behind the bars for more than four and a half years
Report submitted by the Trial Court revealed that charge was framed in the year 2014 but no prosecution witness had been examined
Seventy adjournments were provided to the prosecution for the production of evidence but the prosecution failed to produce evidence
Adjournments sought by the prosecution were more than adjournments sought by the defence/accused
Order sheet did not reflect that the evidence could not be recorded because of the reason attributable to the accused
High Court observed that gravity of allegation at certain stage, had to yield to consideration of individual liberty and could not be allowed to deny bail to accused even in a case where, despite he, having completed almost four years and ten months in jail, not a single prosecution witness was examined
Said period was quite a long period of an individual detention during trial
Record showed that petitioner was neither a previously convict nor hardened, desperate and dangerous criminal
Bail was allowed to the petitioner, in circumstances. Muhammad Zul Sabtain Aamir, DDPP and Imran, ASI along with record.
Judgment & Decree
MISS AALIA NEELUM, J.
The petitioner seeks post arrest bail in case FIR No.566-2013, dated 20.10.2013, under Sections 302/324/148/ 149/109, P.P.C., registered at Police Station Badami Bagh, Lahore.
2. Arguments heard and record perused.
3. I have noticed that this is 2nd post arrest bail petition filed by the petitioner, whereas first on statutory delay in trial. Earlier bail application bearing Crl. Misc.No.1276-B of 2017 was dismissed on 05.06.2017. Thereafter petitioner filed instant bail petition of statutory delay in conclusion of trial. Undeniably the petitioner is named in the FIR with the allegation of collective firing along with his co-accused resulted into murder of the real brother and Bhabi of the complainant whereas two persons were injured. But fact remains that the petitioner was arrested on 20.01.2014. First of all, I examined the record of the case and report requisitioned from the trial court to find out whether the delay in trial is substantially or materially attributable to the petitioner himself. For this purpose, I have perused the report and copies of order-sheets of the criminal proceeding. Charge was framed by the learned trial Court on 21.10.2014. After that the case was first fixed for recording evidence and prosecution evidence was summoned. Since then, till date, no prosecution witness has been examined. From the report on most of the dates, prosecution did not pursue the case and seventy (70) adjournments were provided to the prosecution for production of evidence but the prosecution failed to produce evidence. The adjournments sought by the prosecution are more than adjournments sought by the defence. Except this, there is nothing in the order sheets, which reflects that the evidence could not be recorded because of the reason attributable to the petitioner. The gravity of allegation, at one stage, has to yield to consideration of individual liberty and cannot be allowed to deny bail to an accused even in a case where despite he having completed almost 4 years and ten months in Jail, not a single prosecution witness is examined. Period of 4 years and ten months is quite a long period of an individual detention during trial. It becomes a matter of more concern when the Court finds that the prosecution has not been able to take off despite lapse of such a long time inasmuch as not a single witness has been examined. There is nothing on the record to show that either the petitioner is previously convict or a hardened, desperate and dangerous criminal.
4. For what has been stated above, this petition is allowed and petitioner is admitted to post arrest bail subject to his furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs.5,00,000/- with the surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial court. MQ/M-190/L Bail granted.