Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: KHALID MAHMOOD BOKHARI VS Respondent: THE STATE
1988 P Cr
1988 P Cr. L J 916
[Special Court (Offences in Banks), Lahore]
Before Ghazanfar Ali Gondal, J (Rtd.)
KHALID MAHMOOD BOKHARI--Petitioner
Versus
THE STATE--Respondent
Bail Application No. 163 of 1987, decided on 22nd July, 1987.
Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)--
---S. 497--Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 409, 468, 471 & 477-A- Offences in Respect of Banks (Special Courts) Ordinance (IX of 1984), S. 5--Bail, grant of--Statutory delay--Trial not commencing within one year of detention--Delay not attributable to accused--No previous conviction to the credit of accused--Offence not falling within prohibitory clause--Bail granted in circumstances.
Yousaf Kazmi for Petitioner.
Sardar Nazar Hussain'Dogar, Special Public Prosecutor, assisted by Ch. Fazal-ur-Rehman for the State.
ORDER
This order will dispose of bail petitions moved on behalf of Khalid Mahmood Bokhari, Officer, Habib Bank Limited in cases Nos. 237 and 238 based on F.I.R. No. 139/86, dated 8-6-1986 Police Station New Anarkali, Lahore, under' sections 409, 468, 471 and 477-A, P.P.C. He had unsuccessfully applied for bail on merits earlier. Presently he seeks bail on the ground that he has been detained for a continuous period exceeding one year and his trial has not concluded so far.
2. It is stated that neither any date of hearing has been fixed nor are there any prospects of his early trial.
3. Learned Special Public Prosecutor has opposed the bail on the ground that since he is alleged to have misappropriated /embezzled an amount of Rs.3,27,300 being a hardened, desperate and dangerous criminal he is not entitled to bail. He, however, concedes that there is no previous conviction to the discredit of the petitioner. None of the offences with which the petitioner is charged is punishable with death.
4. Admittedly, his trial has not commenced or concluded within a period of one year of his detention. The delay is not attributable to him in any manner. Accordingly, I admit him to bail in the above noted cases in the sum of Rs. 3,50,000 with two sureties in the like amount to the satisfaction of Registrar of this Court.
S.A./19/Sp.B Bail granted.