Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: SHAHNAWAZ VS Respondent: THE STATEHonorable Justice Mushir AlamJai Jai Vishno,Mushtaque Ahmed Kourejo
2005 Y L R 180
2005 Y L R 180
[Karachi]
Before Mushir Alam, J
SHAHNAWAZ---Applicant
Versus
THE STATE---Respondent
Criminal Bail Application No. 518 of 2004, decided 11th October, 2004.
Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)-----
----S.497---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss.302/324/337-H(ii)/148/149---Bail, grant of---Bail application earlier filed by accused was dismissed with direction to Trial Court to frame charge and examine witnesses within three months, but no charge was framed according to direction-- Prosecution on several occasions failed to produce accused---Charge was not framed on ground that co-accused had not engaged the counsel---Since case under S.302, P. P. C. entailed capital punishment, Trial Court could appoint a pauper counsel for accused who were unable to engage counsel---Prosecution was slow in proceeding with the case, even police papers were not supplied to accused on many dates and it appeared that prosecution was not keen to proceed with case---General allegations against 17 people were that they duly armed with weapons had fired at complainant party which resulted in death of two persons---No specific allegation was on the record against accused directly, in circumstances coupled with delay in proceedings, accused was admitted to bail.
Jai Jai Vishno for Applicant.
Mushtaque Ahmed Kourejo State Counsel.
ORDER
Applicant Shahnawaz, facing trial in crime No. 32 of 2002, for an offence under sections 302, 324, 337-H(ii), 148 and 149, P.P.C. was declined bail on merits by the learned trial Court. This Court's order also in B.A. No.618 of 2003, dismissed the bail application on 26-1-2004, and directed the learned trial. Court to frame the charge and examine the witnesses within three months from the date of receiving of the order of this Court. It appears that the directions of this Court were received by the learned trial Court as referred in the diary, dated 18-2-2004, on examination of diaries up to date thereafter, shows that even charge has not been framed. The prosecution on several occasions failed to produce the accused person who was behind the bar since 8-5-2002, it appears that the charge is also not framed on the ground that co-accused Sajjan has not engaged the counsel. Since the case under section 302, P.P.C. entails capital punishment the learned trial Court may A appoint a pauper counsel for such accused persons, who are unable to engage counsel as there is no reason not to comply with the order of the Court. Where from the record it appears that the prosecution is slow in proceeding with the case and as even police papers were not supplied to the accused person on many dates. Accused is behind bars since 8-5-2002 and despite expiry of period fixed by this Court while hearing bail application. It appears that the prosecution is not keen to proceed with case, the charge as has not yet been framed what to subject, of examination of any evidence. It appears that there are general allegations against as many as 17 people duly armed with weapons to have caused fire at the complainant party which resulted in the death of two persons. There is no specific allegation against the applicant directly. In circumstances and coupled with the delay in prosecution. Applicant is extended bail subject to furnishing two solvent sureties in the sum of Rs.2,00,000 (two hundred thousand) and PR bond in the like amount. The applicant shall continue to attend trial Court on each and every date. In case, concession of bail is misused or abused, learned trial Court will be at liberty to cancel the bail and forfeit the surety to the State.
H.B.T./S-63/K Bail grants.