Lawyers Directory Listing
Unlock direct contact details for up to 10 lawyers so you can call or WhatsApp the right legal professional and move your matter forward with confidence.
Criminal Bail Application No.88 of 1985, decided on 20th 1985.
---S.497--Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S.302--Bail, grant of Admittedly two years and about 1 months passed since arrest of accused yet trial not concluded--Accused only responsible for seeking two adjournments throughout his trial and that too for bona fide reasons- Such adjournments, held, could not be made a ground for refusing bail to accused--Bail Mowed, in circumstances.
Allahdino G. Memon for Applicants.
Sarfraz Ahmad, A. A.-G. for the State.
This bail application has been moved on behalf of Munir n mad and Muhammad Jamil, who are facing trial u/s.302/34, P.P.C. the Court of Additional Sessions Judge Sanghar. The bail has been sought on the solitary ground of delay in conclusion of vide which has not been completed within statutory period of two years. The learned trial Court however declined to grant bail on the said found as in view of the learned trial Judge the accused were also to blame for the delay. It was noted by the trial Court that as many as four adjournments were granted on request of the accused.
I have been taken through the case-diary by the learned counsel for the applicants. It appears that the first document sought by accused was on 23-10-1983 when admittedly no witness was present. Therefore it was argued that the case had to be adjourned regardless of the accused's request for the adjournment fond as such the adjournment on the above date could not be attributed to the accused. On the next two dates i.e. 12-12-1983 and 23-4-1984, the adjournment was of course granted on the ground of professional engagements of the learned defence counsel in the High Court. The fourth adjournment on 19-7-1984 was sought on behalf of the accused on the ground that in absence of other witnesses it, would not be in the interest of the accused to cross-examine the complainant who alone was in attendance. Thus it would appear that it was only on two occasions that the case had to be adjourned owing to the absence of the defence counsel.
In support of his arguments the learned counsel for the applicants has relied upon Dur Muhammad v. The State P L D 1983 Lah.24 in which the delay caused in conclusion of the trial on account of bona fide act of the undertrial prisoner or any one else on his behalf was not considered as any hitch in the way of granting bail to the accused.
The next authority on which the learned counsel placed reliance is reported as Samandar Gul and another v.The State 1984 PCr.LJ 626. In this case the adjournment was sought by the defence counsel on the ground of his objection to recording of evidence piecemeal. It was held that such legal objection is not to be described as one having been resorted to for delaying the trial of the case.
My attention has also been drawn to the Supreme Court authority reported is Akhtar Abbas v. The State P L D 1982 S C 424. The facts of the case covered by this authority are distinguishable inasmuch as that eight adjournments were sought by the accused on the dates on which a number of witnesses were present but were not examined.
In the instant case only two adjournments and that too for bona fide reasons are debited in the account of the accused. In view of the authorities discussed above, such adjournments cannot be permitted to be the reason for refusing bail to the accused. Admittedly two years and about months have passed since arrest of the, accused but the trial has not yet concluded. The learned counsel for the accused states that in view of filing of direct complaint relating to the same incident the trial is bound to prolong and there is no l hope of its early conclusion.
For the above reasons, the learned A.A.-G. has also no objection to grant of bail to the accused. Accordingly bail is allowed to the accused in the sum of Rs.25,000/- each and P.R. Bond of the same amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court.
S.G.D./M-136/ K Bail granted.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer