Find a Lawyer

Every Lawyer listed in this directory is verified by SJP verification Team

✓ Free WhatsApp lawyer help
Need to speak to a lawyer now?

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.

💬 Instant WhatsApp chat ⚖ Verified lawyer directory ⏰ Replies in minutes

NASEER AHMAD versus THE STATE


Criminal Code of Conduct (CRPC) Section 497 (1), Third Proviso Panel Code (XLV of 1860), Section 302/307 148/149 Guaranteed, Trial Within Two-Year Legal Period From The Date Of Arrest Approval of Hearing. The accused's trial was not delayed by any proceedings or omissions, but not by the police or jail authorities, or by any of the accused accused or prosecuted by any of the co-accused. Was gone Section 7, CR is entitled to guarantee under the third section of subsection (1) of the PC

1986 P Cr. L J 248

[Lahore]

Before Ghazanfar Ali Gondal, J

NASEER AHMAD Petitioner

Versus

THE STATE Respondent

Criminal Miscellaneous No. 1787‑B of 1983, heard on 27th August, 1983.

Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) -

‑‑‑S. 497(1), third proviso‑‑Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S. 302/307 148/149‑‑‑Bail, grant of‑‑Trial of case not concluding within statutory period of two years from date of arrest of accused‑‑Delay in trial not occasioned by any act or omission on part of accused but due to act of either police or jail authorities in not producing him or on part of co‑accused who was not accused's agent nor was acting on his behalf‑‑ Accused, held, entitled to grant of bail under third proviso to subsection (1) of S. 7, Cr.P.C.

Dr. Khalid Ranjha for Petitioner.

Nemo for the State.

Date of hearing: 27th August, 1983.

JUDGMENT

I have perused the record received from the Court of Additional Sessions Judge. The petitioner was arrested on 12‑6‑1981. On 20‑11‑1982 and 23‑12‑1982, the petitioner was not produced from the jail. It was the police or jail authorities who did not produce him. The other adjournments in this case had been occasioned on account of the fact that the co‑accused Ahmad Din had absconded and was not available. It is clear, therefore, that the delay in the trial has not been occasioned by any act or omission on the part of the petitioner, but due to the act of either the police or jail authorities in not producing him or the act or omission on the part of co‑accused Ahmad Din, who was not the petitioner's agent nor was acting on his behalf. The statutory period of two years from the date of petitioner's arrest has already expired without the trial of petitioner having concluded without any fault on his part. The petitioner is, therefore, entitled to the grant of bail under third proviso to subsection (1) of section 497, Cr.P.C. I, therefore, grant him bail in the sum of Rs.40,000 with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the A.C., Sheikhupura.

2. The record of the case shall be returned to the Court concerned forthwith.

H.A.K. Bail allowed.

Find a Lawyer Near You

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

🔍 Find a Lawyer
Popular cities: Lahore· Karachi· Islamabad· Rawalpindi· Multan· Faisalabad
ask a advocate free from Kotli Loharan lawyer

SJP Lawyers DirectorySJP Lawyers Directory

Pakistan's leading legal-technology platform and verified lawyer directory — connecting clients, lawyers, law firms and Bar Associations across the country.

Get in Touch

© 2018–2027 SJP Legnocrats (SMC-Private) Limited. All rights reserved.
Talk to a Lawyer Free · replies in minutes
👋 Need a lawyer? Chat with us free on WhatsApp now.