Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: MUHAMMAD JAVED VS Respondent: StateHonorable Justice Mian Muhammad Najam-uz-ZamanSyed Kazim Bokhari,Khawar Ikram Bhatti and Muhammad Khalid
2006 P Cr
2006 P Cr. L J 1774
[Lahore]
Before Mian Muhammad Najam-uz-Zaman, J
MUHAMMAD JAVED----Petitioner
Versus
THE STATE----Respondent
Criminal Miscellaneous No.7969/B of 2005, decided on 28th March, 2006.
Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)---
----S. 497---Customs Act (IV of 1969), Ss.178, 157(d), (c), (h), (8), (1), 156, 32(I), 16 & 2(5)---Bail, refusal of---Report submitted by the Trial Court had revealed that after framing the charge, evidence of prosecution witnesses was being recorded and case was likely to be concluded within six months---Since trial in case had already commenced, it was not appropriate to dilate upon factual aspect of the case lest it might prejudice case of either party---Petition stood disposed of with the direction by the High Court to the Trial Court to accelerate proceedings and conclude same within four months instead of six months.
1996 PCr.LJ 347 ref.
Syed Kazim Bokhari for Petitioner.
Khawar Ikram Bhatti and Muhammad Khalid for Respondent.
ORDER
MIAN MUHAMMAD NAJAM-UZ-ZAMAN, J.---Muhammad Javed petitioner seeks post-arrest bail in case F.I.R. No.16 of 2005, dated 7-7-2005 for the offences under sections 178, 157(d)y (c), (h), (8), (1), 156, 32(1), 16 and 2(5) of the Customs Act, registered at Police Station Nabha Road, Lahore, on the grounds that petitioner a clerk in a Clearing Agency owned by Ikhlaque Ahmed Khan co-accused who had already been admitted to bail by the trial Court, there is no role attributed to the petitioner except that he had signed the shipping bill and thus petitioner has got nothing to do with the items which were exported, bare perusal of the F.I.R. reveals that petitioner has not been arraigned as accused in this case and during the investigation nothing was recovered from the petitioner. In support of his arguments, learned counsel has relied upon case reported as 1996 PCr.LJ 347. Conversely counsel for the Customs Department vehemently oppose the bail application.
2. Heard. File perused.
Report submitted by the trial Court, dated 21-1-2006 reveals that after framing the charge the evidence of the prosecution witnesses is being recorded and the case in hand is likely to be concluded within six months.
Since the trial in this case has already commenced, it is not appropriate to dilate upon the factual aspect of the case lest it may prejudice the case of either party. This petition stands disposed of with the direction to the trial Court to accelerate the proceedings and conclude the same within four months instead of six months as reported.
H.B.T./M-369/L Bail refused.