Find a Lawyer

Criminal Miscellaneous No. 4789/B of 1974, decided on 9th January 1975.

---S. 498‑Bail‑Delay‑Delay of one year in completion of inquiry proceedings‑Held sufficient ground for enlarging accused on bail. (Bail‑Belay].

Muhammad Din etc. v. State Criminal Appeal No. 70 of 1972 ref.

Sardar Muhammad Latif Khan Khosa for Petitioner

S. Maqbool Hussain Shah for the State.

This 14 an application under section 498, Cr. P. C. for the grant of bail by Ghulam Murtza Shah. He is an accused, alongwith two others of offences under section 302/307/34, P. P. C. The occurrence took place on 3‑6‑1973. Ghulam Murtaza Shah petitioner and his co‑accused Ghulam Mustajab Shah were arrested on 5‑6‑1973 but the third co‑accused Jumma Shah could not be arrested, as he had absconded. The challan was prepared by the Investigating Officer on 3‑7‑1973 but was filed in Court on 15‑9‑1973. It was mentioned in the report in the challan that Jumma Shah co‑accused had been declared a proclaimed offender. There are 15 prosecution witnesses in the instant case and only five out of them have yet been examined, while two have been given up. As a result, seven prosecution witnesses have to be examined as yet, although more than a year has passed since the submission of the challan in Court. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that this amounts to an inordinate delay in the completion of inquiry proceeding and the petitioner is entitled to the grant of bail on this score. Learned counsel for the State opposes the application on the ground that the learned Inquiry Magistrate could not proceed with the case on account of the abscondence of Jumma Shah co‑accused and proceedings in the case were started on 2‑1‑1974, Jumma Shah co‑accused has not been arrested even now.

2. In reply the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that since the fact of Jumma Shah having been declared a proclaimed offender was mentioned in the challan itself, the learned Inquiry Magistrate could have proceeded in his absence by virtue of provisions of section 512, Cr. P. C., which he has done after a delay of more than a year. He contended that the present petitioner should not be penalised for inaction on the part of the learned Inquiry Magistrate. He further submits that even from 2‑1‑1974 when the Magistrate examined the proceedings it is now more than one year, today being the 9th of January 1975. I, feel that there is a sufficient force in this contention and there is indeed delay of more than one year in the completion of inquiry proceedings. A delay of more than one year hag been considered to be sufficient ground for grant of bail, as held by the Supreme Court of Pakistan in Criminal Appeal No. 70/1972 (Muhammad Din etc. v. State) on account of inordinate delay in the completion of inquiry proceeding. As a result I grant the petitioner bail on the ground of inordinate delay, in the sum of Rs. 20,000 with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the A. C. Lodhran.

Find a Lawyer Near You

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