Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: ABDUL JABBAR VS Respondent: THE STATE
1988 M L D 202
1988 M L D 202
[Lahore]
Before Lehrasap Khan, J
ABDUL JABBAR--Petitioner
versus
THE STATE--Respondent
Criminal Miscellaneous No. 2087/B of 1987, decided on 20th July, 1988.
Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)--
---S. 497--Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S.302/148/149--Bail, grant of--Trial against accused was not concluded despite period of more than two years had elapsed- Delay in trial of case having neither been occasioned by accused nor by any other person acting on his behalf--Accused, held, had earned statutory right of being released on bail by efflux of time exceeding two years since after his arrest.- [Delay].
Ch. Liaqat Ali Sindhu for Petitioner.
Shaukat Hussain for the State.
JUDGMENT Abdul Jabbar petitioner, who is involved in a case under section 302/148/149, P.P.C. arising out of F.I.R. No. 61, dated 28-2-1986, registered at Police Station Pindi Bhattian, District Gujranwal has sought to be released on bail on statutory ground.
2. Previously petitioner's application for bail on merits was considered and was dismissed.
1t transpires from the records of investigation brought by the aforementioned police officer that the petitioner was arrested in this case on 13 3-1986. Thus, a period of more than two years and four months has elapsed since after his arrest, but the trial against him has not been concluded. The learned counsel for the complainant while opposing the petitioner's request for bail has urged that the trial was likely to be commenced in the near future and that in certain cases even after the lapse of more than two years since after the arrest, the accused have not been released on bail.
3. Third proviso to subsection (1) of section 497, Cr.P.C. expressly provides that the Court shall, except where it is of opinion that the delay in the trial of the case has been occasioned by an act or omission of the accused or any other person acting on his behalf, direct that the accused shall be released on bail, who being accused of an offence punishable with death, has been retained for such offence for a continuous period exceeding two years and whose trial for such offence has not been concluded.
The learned counsel for the complainant, however, has not been able to show that the delay in the trial of this case has, in any manner, been occasioned by the petitioner or by any other person acting on his behalf. In the circumstances, the petitioner has earned the statutory right of being released on bail by efflux of time exceeding two years since after his arrest. This statutory right cannot be denied to him. In this view of the matter, the petitioner is admitted to bail in the sum of Rs.30,000 with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of A.C. Hafizabad.
H.B.T./A-430/L
Bail granted.