Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: ABDUL RASHID VS Respondent: STATE
1994 P Cr
1994 P Cr. L J 985
[Lahore]
Before Rashid Aziz Klan, J
ABDUL RASHID ---Petitioner
Versus
THE STATE---Respondent
Criminal Miscellaneous No.4338/B of 1993, decided on 7th December, 1993.
Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)---
----S. 497---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S. 392---Offences Against Property (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance (VI of 1979), S.17---Bail, grant of---Bail earlier allowed to accused had been cancelled by Trial Court for his non- appearance in the Court on one date---Accused was behind the bars thereafter for more than two years and his trial had not yet concluded---Accused was enlarged on bail in circumstances.
Asghar Ali Gill for Petitioner.
Muhammad Iqbal for the State.
Date of hearing: 7th December, 1993.
ORDER
Abdul Rashid, petitioner seeks bail in case registered against him and others with Police Station Shalimar, Lahore, vide F.I.R. No.261/86, for an offence under section 392, P.P.C. and section 17 of Offences Against Property (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was later on allowed bail and he appeared throughout before the trial Court except on 6-11-1991, in pursuance of which the trial Court cancelled the bail. Learned counsel asserts that the petitioner was arrested and sent to jail on 3-i1-1991 in another case, therefore, could not appear before the trial Court and in such circumstances his absence was neither intentional nor wilful, but was due to the circumstances beyond his control. The petition has vehemently been opposed by learned counsel for the State.
2. After hearing both the sides, I have noticed that the bail of the petitioner was cancelled on 6-11-1991 and till today he is behind the bars. The trial has not concluded as yet, though according to the learned counsel for the State, only one prosecution witness remains to be examined.
In these circumstances, I feel the petitioner is entitled to concession of bail. Therefore, the petitioner is allowed bail, provided he furnishes security in the sum of Rs.1,00,000 (Rupees one lacy, with two sureties, each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court.
N.H.Q./A-544/L Bail allowed.