Lawyers Directory Listing
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.
1985 P Cr. L J 1614
[Karachi]
Before Fakhruddin H. Shaikh, J
RAHIL JAVEED and others‑‑Applicants
versus
THE STATE‑‑Respondent
Criminal Bail Application No. 720 of 1984, decided on 27th August, 1984.
‑‑‑S.497‑‑Bail, grant of‑‑Trial Court not vigilant and careful about conducting of case and despite direction of High Court, incomplete statement of complainant only recorded‑‑Applicants juvenile offender and confined in jail for over six months‑‑Complainant also doubtful about identity of applicants as accused persons‑‑Petitioners allowed bail, in circumstances.
A. Nesar Alam for Applicants.
A. A. Muhammadally, A.A.‑G. for the State.
The explanation of trial Court regarding non‑compliance of the order of this Court, dated 18‑3‑1984 has been perused. The explanation is not sufficient. The learned trial Court has not taken due care to proceed with the case day to day. Had he been vigilant and careful about conducting the case, it would not have been difficult to decide the case during the period.
From March, 1984 till today only one witness that is complainant Nesar Ahmad, has been examined. But even his statement has not been completed and further examination has been reserved for want of case property. From the statement of Nesar Ahmad it appears that he was doubtful about the identity of the accused. In his examination he states as under about the identity of the accused. "I see all the six accused present in Court and say that they are all probably same". From the statement of the complainant the case has become prima facie doubtful. Moreover the applicants are also alleged to be teen aged and are confined in Juvenile Jail at Landhi. Although it is not clear whether they are all 16 years of age. They have already remained in jail for the last more than six months.
In view of the above circumstances the bail application is allowed. The applicants shall be released on furnishing surety in the amount of Rs.15,000 and PRs. in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial court. The trial Court is further directed to complete the trial within two months. Such compliance report should be submitted to this Court. The office is directed to put up this case after two months, if no compliance report is received.
S.G.D. Bail granted.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer