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 Miscellaneous Application No. 732 of 1985, decided on 23rd September, 1985.
‑‑‑S. 497(5)‑‑Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S. 304‑‑Cancellation of bail‑ Accused granted bail by trial Court‑‑‑ Application for cancellation of bail dismissed by trial Court‑‑Complainant keeping quiet for five months after order of dismissal of application and filing application for cancellation of bail before High Court‑‑Case against accused found to be of further inquiry‑‑Prayer for condonation of delay in filing said application refused.
Zia‑ul‑Hassan v. The State P L D 1984 S C 192 distinguished.
‑‑‑S. 497(5)‑‑Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S. 304‑‑Cancellation of bail‑‑ Two persons hit by accused's bus and were killed‑‑Accused was challaned under S. 304, P.P.C.‑‑Question whether case fell under S. 304, P.P.C. was yet to be determined ‑‑Accused not misusing concession of bail during period of six months‑‑Cancellation of bail refused.
Usman Ghani Rashid for the Complainant/ Applicant.
Abdul Majeed Choudhary for Respondent No. 1.
Abdul Hameed and Hassan Akbar, Asstt.A.‑G. for the State.
This application has been moved by private party namely, the complainant for cancellation of bail granted to the respondent No. 1 by the trial Court by order, dated 23‑10‑1984. On the same day the applicant /complainant moved the trial Court for cancellation of bail granted to the respondent No. 1. Mr. Usman Ghani Rashid, for the applicant states that there is no indication in the record if the complainant's Advocate was present at the time of considering of the bail application and granting of bail to the respondent No. 1. However, the learned trial Court dismissed the application for cancellation of bail order, dated 25‑11‑1984. Thereafter, the complainant kept quiet for five months and then filed the present application against the order, dated 25‑11‑1984 passed by the trial Court. The learned counsel for the applicant in this connection has relied upon Zia‑ul-Hassan v. The State P L D 1984 S C 192 in order, to show that the delay in making the application for cancellation of bail can be condoned. I have gone through this authority and found that the facts of the reported case are different from those of the present case and as such it is not applicable to the present case. Moreover, in the reported case the cancellation of bail has sought at the instance of the state and not by private parties.
The learned Assistant Advocate‑General has also opposed the application for cancellation of bail and rightly so. Basically the case in which the accused is facing trial, is of an accident. Somehow two persons who were riding the motor‑cycle were hit by the accused's bus and were killed. The police for reasons best known to them have chosen to challan the accused under section 304, P.P.C. It is yet to be determined by the trial Court if the case falls under section 304, P.P.C. and the accused had knowledge that his driving which was rash and negligent was likely to result in death of the two motor‑cycle riders. Moreover the accused has remained on bail for about six months. There is no allegation that he has in any way abused the concession of bail.
Accordingly the application is dismissed. However, the observations made above will not be taken to influence the trial Court in the final decision of the case.
H.A.K. Cancellation of bail refused.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer