2018 PLP 71 (YLRN)
ASHFAQ AHMAD — Petitioner Versus The STATE and another — Respondents
| Citation | 2018 PLP 71 (YLRN) |
| Forum / Court | Peshawar |
| Bench Members | Qaiser Rashid Khan, J |
| Parties | ASHFAQ AHMAD — Petitioner Versus The STATE and another — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2018 PLP 71 (YLRN)?
This judgment primarily cites: Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2018 PLP 71 (YLRN)?
The case was heard and decided by the Peshawar bench comprising: Qaiser Rashid Khan, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2018 PLP 71 (YLRN) (ASHFAQ AHMAD — Petitioner Versus The STATE and another — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Tafseel Khan Afridi for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
S. 497
Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S. 412
Offences Against Property (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance (VI of 1979), S. 17(3)
Dishonestly receiving stolen property in commission of an offence, haraaba
Accused was behind the bars for thirty three months
Challan had been submitted in the court and conclusion of trial was not in sight
Delay was not attributable to accused
Accused, in circumstances, was entitled to concession of bail on ground of statutory delay
Bail was granted accordingly. [Para. 4 of the judgment] Syed Sikandar Hayat Shah, A.A.G. for the State. Shah Faisal Utman Khel for the Complainant (Respondent No.2).
Judgment & Decree
QAISER RASHID KHAN, J.
The accused/petitioner, Ashfaq Ahmad, seeks bail in case FIR No. 769 dated 15.10.2014, under section 17 (3) Offences Against Property (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979 read with sections 412, P.P.C. and 15 AA, registered at police station Pahari Pura, Peshawar on the ground of statutory delay in the conclusion of trial.
2. Arguments he was and available record perused.
3. Earlier, bail was declined to the accused/petitioner or merits by this court vide order dated 15.01.2016 in No. 2458-P of 2015. This time, the accused/ petitioner through his counsel has only pressed into service the ground of delay which has occasioned whereby his trial has not been concluded ever since his arrest on 05.11.2014.
4. In a situation where the occurrence took place on 15.10.2014, the accused/petitioner was arrested on 05.11.2014 and has been behind the bars for the last thirty three (33) months, where the challan has been put in court on 08.02.20 7 and the conclusion of the trial with whatever its outcome is yet a forlorn dream for the accused/petitioner and more so when such delay barring a couple of months consumed while pursuing his bail applications is not attributable to the accused/petitioner, then he is indeed entitled to the concession of bail on the ground of statutory delay in the conclusion of his trial or else his further stay in the judicial lock-up may tantamount to his pre-trial conviction.
5. Accordingly, this bail application is allowed and the petitioner is directed to be released on bail provided he furnishes bail bon (Rs in the sum of Rs.500000/- (five hundred thousand) with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial court. The sureties must be local, reliable and men of means. WA/278/P Bail granted.