PLJ 2021 Cr.C. (Note) 97
Criminal Procedure Code, 1898 (V of 1898)--
----S. 497(iii)--Pakistan Penal Code, (XLV of 1860), Ss. 302/34--Bail after arrest, dismissal of--Allegation of--Delay in conclusion of
trial--Instant petition for bail after arrest is mainly moved on account of delay in conclusion of trial--Previously, petitioner twice applied for grant of bail after arrest, but remained Unsuccessful--Since instant application is mainly moved on account of delay in conclusion of trial, hence a report was also requisitioned from trial Court--Petitioner was arrested in instant case whereas report under Section 173, Cr.P.C. was submitted--Petitioner was charge sheeted by trial Court--It further evinces from order sheet of trial Court that till today, as many as on 15 occasions witnesses were in attendance but case was adjourned on account of absence of defence counsel--Though, it is postulated in 3rd Proviso of section 497, Cr.P.C. that an accused becomes entitled to concession of bail, if trial is not concluded within period stipulated therein, however, this right guaranteed by Proviso Section 497 qualifies for acceptance with certain exceptions and limitations--These exceptions and limitations are provided in 3rd and 4th Proviso of Section 497, Cr.P.C--A person qualifies to be released on bail under 3rd Proviso of Section 497, Cr.P.C--if trial has not been delayed due to an account omission of accused or any person acting on his behalf--In instant case, perusal of order sheet sufficiently reflects that on numerous dates, case was adjourned due to absence of counsel for petitioner, despite fact that witnesses were in attendance--Even otherwise, it divulges from report submitted by learned trial Court that statements of as many as five witnesses have been recorded--Such aspect of matter reveals that conclusion of trial is within sight--Since petitioner has contributed delay in conclusion of trial, hence he is not found to concession of bail under Section 3rd Proviso of Section 497, Cr.P.C.--Bail wasw dismissed.
[Para 4 & 5] A
Malik Muhammad Tariq Nonari, Advocate for Petitioner.
Malik Aftab Abbas Khan, Advocate for Complainant.
Mirza Abid Majeed, D.P. G for State.
Date of Hearing: 13.4.2017.
PLJ 2021 Cr.C. (Note) 97
[Lahore High Court, Multan Bench]
Present: Ch. Abdul Aziz, J.
versus
STATE and another--Respondents
Crl. Misc. No. 1537-B of 2017, decided on 13.4.2017.
Order
This is an application for bail after arrest on behalf of Muhammad Iqbal in case FIR No. 06/2015, dated 6.1.2015, under Sctions 302, 34 PPC, registered at Police Station, Makhdoom Pur, District Khanewal.
2. Precisely stated, the case of the prosecution as unfolded from the FIR is that on 06.01.2015 at about 08:00AM, in furtherance of common intention, petitioner and his co-accused namely Jannat Bibi, while armed with deadly weapons launched an assault and thereby caused injuries to Muhammad Arif (nephew of complainant). Muhammad Arif, according to the complainant, succumbed to these injuries and died at the spot.
3. Arguments heard; record perused.
4. The instant petition for bail after arrest is mainly moved on account of delay in the conclusion of trial. Previously, the petitioner twice applied for grant of bail after arrest, this Court but remained unsuccessful. Since the instant application is mainly moved on account of delay in the conclusion of trial, hence a report was also requisitioned from the learned trial Court. The perusal of the record as well as the report submitted by the learned trial Court, reveals that the petitioner was arrested in the instant case on 28.01.2015, whereas the report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. was submitted on 24.03.2015. The petitioner was charge sheeted by the learned trial Court on 10.04.2015. It further evinces from the order sheet of the trial Court that till today, as many as on 15 occasions the witnesses were in attendance but the case was adjourned on account of the absence of defence counsel. Though, it is postulated in 3rd Proviso of section 497, Cr.P.C. that an accused becomes entitled to the concession of bail, if the trial is not concluded within the period stipulated therein, however, this right guaranteed by 3rd Proviso Section 497 qualifies for acceptance with certain exceptions and limitations. These exceptions and limitations are provided in 3rd and 4th Proviso of Section 497, Cr.P.C. A person qualifies to be released on bail under 3rd Proviso of Section 497, Cr.P.C. if the trial has not been delayed due to an act or omission of the accused or any person acting on his behalf. In the instant case, the perusal of the order sheet sufficiently reflects that on numerous dates, the case was adjourned due to the absence of the counsel for the petitioner, despite the fact that the witnesses were in attendance. Even otherwise, it divulges from the report submitted by the learned trial Court that statements of as many as five witnesses have been recorded. Such aspect of the matter reveals that the conclusion of trial is within sight.
5. In view of above, since the petitioner has contributed towords the delay in the conclusion of trial, hence he is not found entitled to the concession of bail under Section 3rd Proviso of Section 497, Cr.P.C.
6. Before parting with this order, I deem it appropriate to issue a direction to the learned trial Court for the expeditious disposal of the case. While doing so, this Court is guided by the observation of Hon’ble Supreme Court of Pakistan laid down in the case of “Muhammad Jahangir Badar vs. The State” (PLD 2003 S.C525).
7. In view of the above, learned trial Court is directed to expedite the process of trial and to conclude the trial within the period of two months from the receipt of this order.
(A.A.K.) Bail dismissed
0 Comments