Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: ABDUL MAJID VS Respondent: THE STATE
1988 M L D 1756
1988 M L D 1756
[Lahore]
Before Zia Mahmood Mirza, J
ABDUL MAJID and 3 others‑‑Petitioners
versus
THE STATE‑‑Respondent
Criminal Miscellaneous No. 3650/13 of 1988, decided on 14th November, 1988.
Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)‑‑--
‑‑‑S 497‑‑Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S. 325/342/34‑‑Bail‑‑Complainant trying to delay the final decision of the case‑‑Offences for which accused were facing trial not falling within the prohibitory clause of S. 497, Cr.P.C.‑‑Prosecution evidence stood concluded‑‑Accused, if released on bail, were not likely to misuse their liberty in any manner‑‑Accused admitted to bail in circumstances.
Pir Muhammad Asif Rafi for Petitioners.
Fazal Elahi Shahid for the State.
ORDER
Facts necessary for the disposal of this bail petition are that a case under section 365/325/342/34, P.P.C. was registered against the petitioners vide F.I.R. No. 75/86, dated 10‑7‑1986 at Police Station Shah Jamal, District Muzaffargarh. They were admitted to pre‑arrest bail by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Muzaffargarh, on 16‑10‑1986. Their bail was, however, cancelled by the learned Additional Sessions Judge vide order dated 16‑8‑1988 on the ground that they had misused the concession of bail in so far they had threatened the complainant party with dire consequences when Mst. Sughran P.W. appeared in Court and supported the prosecution version with the result that she could not appear for cross‑examination for a considerable time. Petitioners then approached this Court through Criminal Miscellaneous No. 948/13 of 1988 which was dismissed by me while sitting at Multan Bench by order dated 7‑9‑1988 holding that "since the petitioners are shown to have fought right in the Court of the learned A.D.C.(G) where the trial was proceeding, it was rightly held by the learned Additional Sessions Judge that the petitioners have misused the concession of bail and their bail was, therefore, correctly cancelled".
2. Petitioners have now moved the present application for the grant of bail mainly on the ground that the complainant party is deliberately delaying the final decision of the case.
3. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners as also the learned counsel appearing for the State. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the statement of Mst. Sughran was completed on 31‑8‑1988 and the prosecution evidence was concluded on 13‑9‑1988. Petitioners were examined under section 342, Cr.P.C. on 25‑9‑1988. Thereafter, the complainant party filed a revision petition on 1‑10‑1988 to challenge some error in the framing of charge and examination of the accused which revision petition has been dismissed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge by his order dated 20‑10‑1988 on the ground that any error in framing of the charge or in the examination of the accused under section 342, Cr.P.C. could be cured by the trial Court itself. It is pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioners that on an application moved by the complainant, the trial Court has since corrected the errors complained of. It is further submitted that the complainant party with a view to further delay the finalization of the case has now moved a transfer application on 8‑11‑1988 wherein the learned Sessions Judge has issued notice for 3‑12‑1988. Contention of the learned counsel is that .although the prosecution has since closed the evidence and the case is ripe for decision, the complainant party is t trying to delay the final decision thereof. It is further contended that the offences for which the petitioners are facing trial viz. section 325/342/34, P.P.C. do not fall within the prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C. It is also submitted that since the prosecution evidence stand, concluded, the petitioners, if released on bail, are of likely to misuse their liberty in any manner.
4. Learned counsel appearing for the State is unable to controvert the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioners.
5. In view of what has been said above, this application is allowed and it is directed that the petitioners be admitted to bail in the sum of Rs.50,000 (Rupees fifty thousand) each, with one surety each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Magistrate.
M.A.K./A‑451/L Bail granted.