| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2004 SLG 2741 2004 SLD 2741 2004 PLD 287 |
Sindh High Court
Constitutional Petition No. D-1356 of 2003, decided on 14th November, 2003, dates of hearing: 13th and 14th November, 2003.
SABIHUDDIN AHMED AND AMIR HANI MUSLIM, JJ
Mian Khan Malik for Petitioner. Anwar Tariq, Dy. Prosecutor General NAB for the State.
Constitutional Petition No. D-1356 of 2003, decided on 14th November, 2003, dates of hearing: 13th and 14th November, 2003.
SABIHUDDIN AHMED AND AMIR HANI MUSLIM, JJ
Mian Khan Malik for Petitioner. Anwar Tariq, Dy. Prosecutor General NAB for the State.
ABDUL QADIR SAHAR
VS
THE STATE
Law:
Section:
Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)--- ----S. 497---National Accountability Ordinance (XVIII of 1999), S.31-A---Bail, grant of---Accused earlier was granted bail by Special Judge, Anti-Corruption and his case was transferred to Accountability Court where he continued appearing on some dates, whereafter he discontinued to appear--Surety amount of accused was forfeited and he was declared proclaimed offender and was convicted under S.31-A of National Accountability Ordinance, 1999 and was sentenced---On filing appeal against his conviction and sentence, order convicting accused was suspended by the High Court directing accused to surrender before National Accountability Court and accused surrendered himself accordingly and he was remanded to judicial custody of said Court--Bail application filed by accused was not pressed by him in view of statement of Deputy Prosecutor General to the effect that Trial Court would conclude trial within two months and bail application was disposed of in above terms---Grievance, of accused in instant bail application was that Trial Court had failed to get trial concluded within stipulated period of two months and despite lapse of more than four months Trial Court could not examine seven prosecution witnesses out of fifty witnesses and that no likelihood was that trial would conclude before another two to three years---Accused had contended that failure of Trial Court to get trial concluded within stipulated period of two months, itself had entitled him to bail---Contention of accused was repelled in view of fact that direction in order of High Court to conclude trial within stipulated period, could not be treated as directory---Even otherwise High Court in its order had stated that upon expiry of said stipulated period of two months, accused could be able to apply for bail and nowhere it was stated that accused would acquire a right to be enlarged on bail---Bail could also be refused on merits because unexplained noticeable absconsion of accused, would disentitle him to concession of bail notwithstanding merits of the case---Accused once having abused the concession and having failed to submit' any plausible explanation for such…
Deprecated: trim(): Passing null to parameter #1 ($string) of type string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 492