| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2012 SLG 2580 2012 SLD 2580 2012 YLR 2432 |
Sindh High Court
Criminal Bail Application No. S-1097 of 2011, decided on 1st June, 2012. DATE of hearing: 23rd April, 2012
MUHAMMAD ALI MAZHAR, J
Maqbool Ahmed Awan for Applicants. Syed Mushtaque Hussain Shah and Miss Rizwana Jabeen Siddiqui for the Complainant. Sardar Ali Shah, A.P.G. for the State
Criminal Bail Application No. S-1097 of 2011, decided on 1st June, 2012. DATE of hearing: 23rd April, 2012
MUHAMMAD ALI MAZHAR, J
Maqbool Ahmed Awan for Applicants. Syed Mushtaque Hussain Shah and Miss Rizwana Jabeen Siddiqui for the Complainant. Sardar Ali Shah, A.P.G. for the State
SHAHAN and anothers
VS
THE STATE
Law:
Section:
(a) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)--- ----S. 497---Bail---Statutory delay in conclusion of trial---Right of bail---Scope---Where the accused or his counsel were found to be instrumental for the delay in conclusion of the trial, benefit of statutory delay could not be claimed as a matter of right. (b) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)- ----S. 497---Bail---Statutory delay in conclusion of trial---Right/benefit of bail---Scope---Such a benefit under the law had been provided as a remedial measure to a person who was found to be diligent in pursuing his case but the trial could not be concluded for some reasons within the stipulated .period ,of time without his negligence or recklessness or delaying tactics. (c) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)--- ----S. 497---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss.302/ 324/ 147/ 148/ 149--- Qatl-e-amd, attempt to commit qatl-e-amd, rioting, rioting armed with deadly weapons, unlawful assembly---Bail, refusal of---Bail sought on ground of statutory delay in conclusion of trial---Failing to engage counsel for a long period of time---Effect--Contentions of the accused persons were that they were behind bars for more than two years and their trial had not yet concluded; that delay in conclusion of trial could not be attributed to them, and that previous bail applications filed by the accused persons before the High Court were disposed of with the direction to the Trial Court to conclude the trial within four months, but same had not been done---Validity---Record of the case showed that the accused persons avoided engaging a counsel for a long time which showed their own negligence and recklessness in pursuing their case---Court even made an offer to the accused persons for providing them an advocate on state expenses, but they clearly refused, which showed that they had sufficient means to arrange counsel fee---Although the High Court had given directions in the previous bail applications filed by the accused persons to conclude the trial within four months but it was also a matter of record that for a considerable period of time, the accused persons failed to engage counsel, therefore, any directions, were of no use as the same…
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