Find a Lawyer

Criminal Bail Application No. 598 of 1984, decided on 25th July, 1984.

‑‑‑S. 497(1), proviso (iii)‑‑Bail, grant of‑‑Trial not commencing even after expiry of statutory period of two years‑‑Accused found to be entitled to statutory concession of bail‑‑Bail granted.

‑‑‑S. 497‑‑Bail, grant of‑‑Facts of case of accused found to be identical to that of another accused who had already been granted bail‑‑Bail granted.

Qurban All Chohan for Accused/ Applicants.

A.A. Mohomedally, A.A.‑G. for the State.

The learned counsel for the applicants contends that applicant No.1 Malook was arrested on 9‑2‑1982. He has been in jail for over two years and the trial has not started as yet. Thus, he is entitled to the statutory concession by virtue of section 497(3), Cr.P.C.

As regards applicant No.2 Raboo, I have heard both the counsel and perused the order passed by my learned Brother Z.C. Valiani, J., as he then was. The facts stated before me are somewhat identical. B Learned A.A.‑G., also concedes to the grant of bail to him on the basis of earlier order passed in Criminal Bail No. 49 of 1983 (Bachu v. The State).

In view of above facts and circumstances, I grant bail to both the applicants. They be released on bail on furnishing solvent surety in the sum of Rs.30,000 and P.R. Bond in the like amount each to the satisfaction of IInd Additional Sessions Judge, Hyderabad.

H.A.K. Bail granted.

Find a Lawyer Near You

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