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 Miscellaneous No. 920/B of 1981, decided on 1st November, 1981.
---S. 497--Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S. 148/302/307/326/149--Bail- Grounds of bail on facts, not pressed before Trial Court, held, would not be available in High Court.
---S. 497--Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S. 148/302/307/326/149--Bail--Delay in conclusion of trial--Trial having been fixed on ten different occasions--Adjourned at least four times due to absence of one of co-accused--Again adjourned on another occasion on application of accused for non-availability of their counsel--Main cause of delay in conclusion of trial, was due to absence of accused--Accused, therefore, could not be given advantage of such delay in circumstances of case.
Sardar Muhammad Latif Khan Khosa for Petitioners.
Akhtar Ali Naz for the State.
Sh. Khizar Hayat for the Complainant.
Fifteen persons including the present petitioners are accused of offence under sections 148, 302, 307, 326/149, P.P.C. Six of the co-accused of the present petitioners have been released on bail. The present petitioners have been in custody for a period of more than 2 years and have applied for bail under the amended provisions of section 497, Cr.P.C. Their application was rejected by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Multan on 15-10-1981 on the ground that the delay in conclusion of the trial was at least partly attributable to the petitioners. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners has argued that he has moved this application not only on the ground of delay but also on the ground that this was a case of further enquiry as there were two versions of the case before the trial Court; one at the instance of the complainant in the F. I. R. and the other at the instance of the accused persons by a complaint in which the accused persons have also been summoned.
2. I am afraid, the ground with regard to the facts of the case is not available to the petitioners in the High Court as this ground was not pressed by the petitioners when they applied for bail in the Court of Sessions. As regards the delay it may be seen that the case was fixed for hearing on 10 different occasions. It was postponed at least on 4 occasions on account of the absence of Elahi Bakhsh, a co-accused of the present petitioners. On 13-9-1981 when the case fixed for hearing an application was moved on behalf of the accused persons including the petitioners for adjournment as the learned counsel for the accused had gone abroad for Haj. A period of 2 years had not elapsed by then. The absence of the accused persons on a number of occasions has been the main cause of delay in the conclusion of the trial. The petitioners cannot be given advantage for the absence of their co-accused, particularly Elahi Bakhsh, two of whose sons are in custody and are accused of causing injuries to the deceased.
3. In view of the above considerations, there is no ground for the grant of bail. The petition is rejected.
S.A./5455/L Petition rejected.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer