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.
Criminal Bail Application No.1388 of 1986, decided on 26th October, 1986.
‑‑‑S.497‑‑Offences Against Property (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance (VI of 1979), S.17(3)‑‑Bail, grant of‑‑Delay in trial‑‑Accused in custody for two years and seven months‑‑Previous bail application not pressed, requesting early disposal of case‑‑Trial Court directed to avoid further delay and conclude evidence within three months‑‑Over eight months having passed‑‑Delay in trial not attributable to accused‑‑Case for bail, held, was made out on ground of inordinate delay in finalizing trial in circumstances.
Sardar Muhammad Ishaque for Applicant.
M.I. Memon, Addl. A.‑G. for the State.
The applicant is facing trial in a case under section 17(3) of the Offences Against Property (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979. He was arrested on 13‑3‑1984 and as such he has remained in custody for over two years and seven months but the trial has not concluded. According to the learned counsel for the applicant, only the complainant has been examined. The previous bail application moved by the present applicant before this Court numbered 1'87 of 1986 was not pressed but a prayer was made for early disposal and by order, dated 20‑2‑1986 this Court directed the trial Court to see to it that no further delay was made in recording evidence and bringing the trial to its conclusion. It was further observed in the order, dated 20‑2‑1986. that as far as possible the trial Court will finish recording evidence within three months. Over eight months have passed since the passing of the order, dated 20‑2‑1986. As observed earlier, however, only the complainant has been examined since then.
The diary sheet has been filed and it does not indicate that the delay in the finalization of the trial is at all attributable to any act or omission on the part of the applicant. In the circumstances; the learned Additional Advocate‑General does not oppose bail and in my view also, on the ground of inordinate delay, the applicant has made out a case for bail.
Criminal Bail Application No. 1388 of 1986 is granted and Muhammad Ayub alias Lakhpati son of Niaz Muhammad is directed to be 'released on bail on his furnishing one surety in the sum of Rs.30,000 with P. R . bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court.
S. A. Bail allowed.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer