Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: SHAKIR ALI VS Respondent: STATEHonorable Justice Aslam Riaz Hussain
1988 S C M R 1073
1988 S C M R 1073
Present: Aslam Riaz Hussain and Saad Saood Jan, JJ
SHAKIR ALI‑‑Petitioner
versus
THE STATE‑‑Respondent
Criminal Petition for Special Leave to Appeal No.90 of 1988, decided on 9th April, 1988.
(Against the order of the Lahore High Court, Lahore, dated 20‑2‑1988 in Crl. Misc. No.307/B of 1988).
Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)‑‑
‑‑‑S.497 (1)‑‑Bail‑‑Fact that the name of the appellant neither appeared as an accused in the F.I.R. nor in private complaint admitted by State Counsel who also agreed with submission that appellant was in prison for the last 21 years but trial had not yet commenced and as such he was entitled to bail as of right under C1.(b) of proviso to S.497(1)‑‑Order of High Court set aside and bail granted.
Ch. Khalilur Rehman, Advocate Supreme Court and Sh. Salahuddin, Advocate‑ on‑Record for Petitioner.
S.M. Zubair, Additional Advocate‑General for the State.
Date of hearing: 9th April, 1988.
ORDER
ASLAM RIAZ HUSSAIN, J.‑‑Shakir Ali petitioner seeks leave to appeal against the order of the Lahore High Court dated 20‑2‑1988, dismissing his bail application in a case under section 302, P.P.C.
2.We have gone through the impugned order and heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Additional Advocate‑General (who appeared in response to a notice). We, therefore, convert this petition into appeal and proceed to dispose of it as such.
3. The petitioner's counsel pointed out that the petitioner is accused, alongwith some other persons, of an offence, inter alia, under section 302/149, P.P.C. and has been sent up for trial on police report. A private complaint filed by the complainant party, about the same incident, against the same accused (including the petitioner), is also pending trial in the same Court.
4. Learned counsel for the 'appellant submitted that the name of Shakir Ali (appellant) neither appears as an accused person in the F.I.R. nor in the .,private complaint. This fact is admitted by the learned Additional Advocate‑General after consulting the relevant police officer, who is present in Court.
The petitioner's counsel also submitted that about 2 years have passed since the petitioner is in prison but the trial has not yet commenced and as such he is entitled to bail as of right under clause (b) of the proviso to section 497(1), Cr.P.C.
Learned Additional Advocate‑General agrees with the above submission of the petitioner's counsel.
5. In this view of the matter we allow the appeal, set aside the impugned order of the High Court and grant bail to Shakir Ali appellant in the sum of Rs.25,000/‑ with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of Assistant Commissioner, Arifwala.
S.Q./S‑132/S Bail granted