Find a Lawyer

Every Lawyer listed in this directory is verified by SJP verification Team

✓ Free WhatsApp lawyer help
Need to speak to a lawyer now?

Chat with us free on WhatsApp — tell us your city and legal matter and our team connects you with the right lawyer. No form, no fee.

💬 Instant WhatsApp chat ⚖ Verified lawyer directory ⏰ Replies in minutes

FARZAND ALI AND ANOTHER versus THE STATE


Criminal Procedure Code (CR PC) A 498 bail trial against the accused listed four months ago, but no challan was presented in court because the accused in jail were being charged without trial under a prisoner under trial. I was not entitled to enter into bail.

1971 P Cr. L J 49

[Lahore]

Before Shaukat Ali, J

FARZAND ALI AND ANOTHER-Petitioners

versus

THE STATE AND ANOTHER -Respondents

Criminal Miscellaneous No. 5600 of 1970, decided on 25th August 1970.

Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898),

S. 498-Bail- Case against accused registered 4 months ago, but no challan put up in Court-Accused lodged in jail as under trial prisoners without trial-Accused, held, had a right to be admitted to bail in circumstances.

C. R. Aslam for I Petitioner.

Nemo for the State.

ORDER

This is an application for bail under section 498, Cr. P. C. On 26th of April 1970, a case under section 379, P. P. C., was registered against Farzand Ali, Ashiq Hussain and one Gul Muhammad at Police Station Mian Chanun. In pursuance of this report they were arrested on the 27th of April 1970. On 29th of April 1970, the petitioners and their co-accused were admitted to bail by the trial Magistrate by his order dated 29th of April 1970. As the Police did not put in the challan in the Court, the learned trial Magistrate by his order dated 21st of July 1970, adjourned the case sine die with a direction to the accused not to appear in the Court until and unless summoned by the Court. Meanwhile, Rajab Ali put in an application under section 497 (5), Cr. P. C., before the Sessions Judge Multan. The application was entrusted to Malik Akhtar Hasan, Additional Sessions Judge, Multan, who cancelled' the bail of, the petitioners by his order dated 4th of August 1970. Aggrieved by the said order the petitioners have put in this application in this Court,

2. The learned Additional Sessions Judge took they view that the allegations made against the accused are. that they snatched away a pair of bullocks of the complainant, there fore, he took the view that the case against the petitioners falls under section 392 of the P. P. C. It is argued on behalf of the petitioners that though the case was registered in the month of April 1970, no challan has been put in the Court so far and that the detention of the accused in jail without trial is riot warranted in law. No one has appeared on behalf of the State to contest this bail appli6ation.

3. The material placed before me shows that the accuse are lodged as under trial prisoners without -trial, therefore, they have right to say that they should be admitted to bail. In the circumstances, admit them to bail provided they furnish bail in the sum of Rs. 5,000 (Rupees five thousand only), each, with one surety each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Magistrate pending, the decision of the case against

Petition allowed.

Find a Lawyer Near You

Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.

🔍 Find a Lawyer
Popular cities: Lahore· Karachi· Islamabad· Rawalpindi· Multan· Faisalabad
list of supreme court advocates from Sargodha lawyer

SJP Lawyers DirectorySJP Lawyers Directory

Pakistan's leading legal-technology platform and verified lawyer directory — connecting clients, lawyers, law firms and Bar Associations across the country.

Get in Touch

© 2018–2027 SJP Legnocrats (SMC-Private) Limited. All rights reserved.
Talk to a Lawyer Free · replies in minutes
👋 Need a lawyer? Chat with us free on WhatsApp now.