Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
1997 M L D 3255
1997 M L D 3255
[Lahore]
Before Raja Muhammad Sabir, J
SARWAR alias KALI ‑‑‑Petitioner
versus
STATE‑‑‑Respondent
Criminal Miscellaneous No. 2021‑B of 1996, decided on 18th February, "1997
Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)‑‑‑
‑‑‑‑S. 497‑‑‑Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S. 302/109/34‑‑‑Bail, grant of ‑‑‑Bail application filed by accused earlier was dismissed by Trial Court on ground the in case accused was released on bail, he was likely to tamper with prosecution evidence which was yet to be recorded‑‑‑Reason given by Trial Court was imaginary one because no allegation whatsoever was available against accused that he made any attempt to tamper with prosecution evidence by issuing threats to any prosecution witness‑‑‑Accused remained in custody of police for about two and half years, but trial had not been concluded despite no allegation was found against accused that delay in conclusion of trial had occurred on account of any fault on his part‑‑‑Only evidence of one witness was recorded in case and conclusion of trial was likely to take considerable long time‑‑‑Accused, in circumstances, was entitled to bail.
Zahid Hussain Shah v. The State PLD 1995 SC 49 ref.
Sahibzada Farooq and Altaf Ibrahim Qureshi for Petitioner.
Sh. Muhammad Rahim for the State.
ORDER
Petitioner Sarwar alias Kali seeks his post arrest bail in a case registered against him and others under section 302/109/34, P.P.C. at Police Station Noor Shah District Sahiwal vide F.I.R. No.364 of 1994 dated 16‑8‑1994.
2. Learned counsel contends that petitioner was arrested by the police on 26‑8‑1994 and since then he is in jail and only evidence of one P.W., has been recorded so far. Other accused have also been summoned by the trial Court.
3. Bail application has been opposed by the learned State counsel on the ground that trial is in progress.
4. Bail application of the petitioner has been dismissed by the learned trial Court on the ground that in case of releasing the petitioner on bail, he is likely to tamper with the prosecution evidence which is yet to be recorded. The reason given by the learned Additional Sessions Judge is imaginary in nature. There is no allegation whatsoever against the petitioner that he made any attempt to tamper with the prosecution evidence by issuing threats to any P.W. The petitioner was taken into custody on 26‑8‑1994 and despite expiry of 2 years 5 months and 22 days trial has not been concluded. Only evidence of one witness has been recorded so far and conclusion of trial is likely to take considerable long time. The petitioner has earned his right to be released on bail on statutory ground under third proviso to section 497 (1), Cr.P.C. There is no allegation that delay in the conclusion of trial has occurred on account of any fault on the part of the petitioner‑accused.
5. In view of the dictum laid down in Zahid Hussain Shah v. The State (PLD 1995 SC 49) .the petitioner is admitted to bail on furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs.1,00,000 (rupees one lac) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of trial Court. The petition is accordingly allowed.
H.B.T./S‑128/L Bail granted.