2016 PLP 1538 (SCMR)
BABAR HUSSAIN — Petitioner Versus The STATE and others — Respondents
| Citation | 2016 PLP 1538 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Amir Hani Muslim and Umar Ata Bandial, JJ |
| Parties | BABAR HUSSAIN — 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 2016 PLP 1538 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2016 PLP 1538 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Amir Hani Muslim and Umar Ata Bandial, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2016 PLP 1538 (SCMR) (BABAR HUSSAIN — Petitioner Versus The STATE and others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Malik M. Afzal Farooqa, Advocate Supreme Court for Petitioner.
- Date of hearing: 27th January, 2016.
- Rai Zamir ul Hassan, Advocate Supreme Court and Ms. Tasnim Amin, Advocate-on-Record for the Complainant.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal against the judgment dated 10-12-2015 passed by the Lahore High Court, Lahore in Crl. Misc. No. 13880-B of 2015)
S. 497
Scope
Delay of more than two years in conclusion of trial
Even after lapse of two years, the conduct of an accused seeking adjournments could be taken note of and bail could be denied by a court even on the statutory ground. Rai Zamir ul Hassan, Advocate Supreme Court and Ms. Tasnim Amin, Advocate-on-Record for the Complainant. Asjad Javed Ghural, Additional P.-G. for the State.
Judgment & Decree
AMIR HANI MUSLIM, J.
The learned Counsel for the Petitioner has contended that no effective measures have been taken by the trial Court till two years and the Petitioner, in law, was entitled to the concession of bail on statutory ground. He submits that the incident took place on 09.08.2013 and the accused was arrested on 19.08.2013 whereas the challan was submitted on 21.09.2013 and charge was framed on 21.12.2013. According to the learned Counsel from 21.12.2013 till 8.10.2015, neither any prosecution witness was examined nor any Application for adjournment was made by the Petitioner. He submits that from the date of framing of charge till 8.10.2015, the period of two years provided under the statute has elapsed, therefore, the Petitioner was entitled to bail on statutory grounds and subsequent conduct of the Petitioner cannot be taken note of while deciding the bail Application of the accused on statutory ground.
2. As against this, the learned Counsel for the Complainant states that adjournments were sought by the Counsel representing the Petitioner four times and the Petitioner engaged a defence Counsel for the first time on 3.12.2015, which fact is disputed by the learned Counsel for the Petitioner. According to the Complainant's Counsel, witnesses were present at times and adjournments were sought by the Petitioner's Counsel and on 19.12.2015, two eye-witnesses were examined but they could not be cross-examined on the ground that the Counsel for the Petitioner was not available and the matter was adjourned.
3. The learned Law Officer has supported the impugned order.
4. We have heard the parties' Counsel as well as the learned Law Officer and have perused the record. We are of the considered view that even after lapse of two years, the conduct of an accused seeking adjournments can be taken note of and bail can be denied by a Court even on the statutory ground. We have noticed that adjournments were sought and even the cross-examination of the eye-witnesses was not conducted by the Petitioner's Counsel, for which no plausible explanation has been offered. In these specific circumstances, we do not find the Petitioner to be entitled to the concession of bail on statutory ground as a matter of right.
5. This Petition being misconceived is dismissed accordingly. Leave refused. MWA/B-2/SC Bail refused.