Find a Lawyer

Criminal Miscellaneous No. 2549‑B of 1973, decided on 17th Oatobar 1973.

5. 497(5)‑Bail, cancellation of‑Delay‑Accused contended to have been granted bail before arrest in a case entailing punishment of transportation for life against principles regulating grant of anticipatory bail‑Contention, held, correct‑Trial, however, being delayed for non‑appointment of Magistrate and not a single witness examined‑Accused, held, entitled to bail on ground of delay alone‑[Bail].

M.R Chughtai for petitioners

M. Yasin Wattoo for Respondents

Habib Ullah Waraich for the State.

This is a petition by Abdul Ghaffar for the cancellation of bail of Muhammad Saleem and five others. While admitting this petition, my learned brother Saleem Mazhar, J. on 25th June lyl3, issued notice to Muhammad Saleem and Muhammad Younas respondents only. The petition against the remaining respondents was dismissed

2. The Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the nature caused by the accused were serious, and the learned also did not consider that the offence under section 307P.P.C is punishable with transpiration for life and unless he had come to conclusion that no offence appeared to have been committed which would be punishable with transportation for life, bail should not have been allowed to the respondents. He further contended that the learned session Judge allowed bail before arrest to the respondents but did not keep in mind the principals on which anticipatory bail is allowed. The fact that the investigation was complete and the challan had been put in court are no grounds for allowing before arrest.

3. There is substance in the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioners. But I find that the respondents are on bail since 9^th June 1973. The challan was submitted by the police in Court before 1973 and so far not a single witness has been examined in the Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State has argued that a report in this case dated 9th July, 1973, revealing that under Section 30 Magistrate at Nankana Sahib. Both the counsel do not know if a section 30 magistrate has been posted there or not. Learned council for the respondents however, maintained that not a single witness has been examined so far which fact the State Counsel enable to controvert. On the ground of delay in the trial alone, the respondents are entitled to bail. 1, therefore, dismiss this petition with direction that the trial be expedited.

Petition dismissed.

Find a Lawyer Near You

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