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. 362 of 1987, decided on 30th April, 1987.
‑‑‑S. 497‑‑Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 148, 302, 307 & 379/149‑‑Bail, grant of‑‑Statutory delay‑‑Dangerous and desperate person‑‑Accused admittedly in jail for more than two years‑‑Delay not attributed to accused‑‑Trial not proceeding for abscondence of co‑accused‑‑No other case pending against accused nor accused a previous convict‑‑Prosecution and police having no objection to bail‑‑Accused, held, could not be termed as dangerous and desperate person and was, therefore, entitled to bail‑‑Bail granted in circumstances.
Muhammad Saleh G. Memon for Applicant.
Abdul Ghafoor Mangi, A.A.‑G. for the State.
This is an application for bail on behalf of the applicant Muhammad Alam who is being tried for the offences punishable under sections 302, 307, 148, 149 and 379, P.P.C. and case is pending against him in the Court of IInd Additional Sessions Judge, Larkana. Bail application of applicant was rejected on merits on 14‑5‑1985.
Criminal Bail Application No. 274 of 1985'. This application is on ground of delay in trial.
Mr. Muhammad Saleh Memon, learned counsel appearing for the applicant contended that applicant was arrested on 6‑3‑1985 as such he has remained in jail for more than two years, therefore, he is entitled to bail on the ground of delay in trial. It is argued that delay is not on the part of applicant.
Mr. Abdul Rahim Kazi, learned Addl. A.‑G. for the State has no objection to the grant of bail.
It is an admitted position that accused has remained in jail for more than two years but learned Sessions Judge has rejected his application on the ground that he is dangerous and desperate person. The progress has not been made in this case on the ground that some co‑accused are absconding.
I am not satisfied to this explanation as criminal trial could not be delayed for inrodinate period on this ground. The trial Court should have examined the process server and proceeded with the case as there is no provision to keep the criminal cases pending for a long time on this ground. With regards to the other contention that applicant is dangerous. Additional Sessions Judge called report from the police which shows that no other case is pending against the applicant nor he is previous convict. S.H.O. Taluka Larkana in his report stated that they have no objection if applicant is granted Pail. In these circumstances applicant in my view cannot be termed as dangerous or desperate. The learned Additional Sessions Judge has not discussed this report in his order. The applicant is entitled to bail under proviso 3 of section 497, Cr.P.C. He is admitted to bail on furnishing one surety in the sum of Rs.50,000 and P.R. bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of trial Court.
S.A./M‑108/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