Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: GHULAM HAIDER VS Respondent: MUHAMMAD KHAN
1997 M L D 2691
1997 M L D 2691
[Lahore]
Before Rashid Aziz Khan, J
GHULAM HAIDER ---Petitioner
versus
MUHAMMAD KHAN and others---Respondents
Criminal Miscellaneous No. 1285/C/B of 1996, decided on 21st April, 1996.
Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)--
----S. 497(5)---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S.302/324/34---Cancellation of bail---Bail had been allowed to accused not on merits but on statutory ground after they had remained in jail as undertrial prisoners for more than two and a half years---No exception could be taken to the bail granting order passed by Trial Court---Petition for cancellation of bail was dismissed accordingly.
Malik Ameer Muhammad Joya for Petitioner.
ORDER
Ghulam Haider petitioner had got a case registered against the respondents and others with Police Station Mochh, District Mianwah on 29-4-1993 for offences under section 302/324/34, P.P.C. Respondents Nasar Khan and Tahir Khan in pursuance of the case were arrested on 21-6-1993. They applied for bail, which was granted to them on statutory ground on 6-3-1996. Complainant has moved the present application seeking cancellation of the bail allowed to respondents by Additional Sessions Judge, Mianwali.
2. It was contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the case against respondents Muhammad Khan and Nasar Khan is of heinous nature and they should not have been allowed bail. Argued that mostly the respondents were responsible for causing the delay in conclusion of the trial and in such circumstances were not entitled to concession of bail on statutory ground.
3. I have heard the learned counsel at length and gone through the file, The respondents are named in the F.I.R. and overt act was also ascribed to each of them but bail by the learned trial Court was not allowed on merits; instead .it was allowed on statutory ground. They were allowed bail after they remained m jail as undertrial prisoners for more than 2-1/2 years. Going through the order impugned, I find no exception can be taken. The petition fails, which is, accordingly, dismissed.
N.H.Q./G-5/L Petition dismissed.