Case Details

Citation(s)
2015 SLG 630 2015 SLD 630 2015 YLR 216
Sindh High Court
Constitutional Petition No. D-505 of 2014, decided on 29th July, 2014. DATE of hearing: 24th July, 2014
MUHAMMAD ALI MAZHAR AND SHAHNAWAZ TARIQ, JJ
Shaukat Hayat for Petitioner. Noor Muhammad Dayo, A.D.P.G. NAB for
Respondents

ALI ANWAR RUK

VS

NATIONAL ACCOUNTABILITY BUREAU through Chairman and another

Law: Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)

Section: 497

Law: Constitution of Pakistan, 1973

Section: 199

Law: National Accountability Ordinance, 1999

Section: 9(b)

Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)--- ----S. 497---National Accountability Ordinance (XVIII of 1999), S.9(b)---Constitution of Pakistan, Art.199---Constitutional petition---Delay in trial---Bail on statutory ground---Accused had been behind bars for 18 months---Delay in trial was not caused due to any inaction or impediment on the part of accused or his counsel---Only five out of 27 witnesses had been examined so trial was not likely to be concluded in near future---Object of trial was to make the accused to face the trial and not to punish the under-trial prisoner---Accused was entitled to expeditious access to justice which included right to fair and expeditious trial without any unreasonable delay---Accused was granted bail. Syed Maqsood Ahmed v. State Civil Petition No.620-K of 2011; Jamil A. Durrani v. The State PLD 2003 Kar. 393; Muhammad Saeed Mehdi v. State and others 2002 SCMR 282 and Danish Ahmed v. The State through Chairman NAB 2002 MLD 1180 ref. ORDER MUHAMMAD ALI MAZHAR, J.---The petitioner has applied for bail on the ground of statutory delay. Earlier his bail application was dismissed on merits by this Court in Constitution Petition No.351 of 2013, thereafter, he moved another Petition No.2895/2013 which was also dismissed by the same division bench of this court vide order dated 16-12-2013 with the following observations:-- "As evidence is being recorded, we are of the view that the process of recording evidence be completed within five weeks. Thereafter, if prosecution delays the matter then the petitioner shall be entitled to move a fresh bail application before this Court. With these observations, this petition is disposed of." 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner argued that in terms of directions given by this court on 16-12-2013, the evidence was to be completed within five weeks. Since the prosecution has miserably failed to conclude the evidence hence on the ground of delay, the petitioner is entitled to be enlarged on bail. He further submits that there are 27 witnesses in the reference and out of which the evidence of only five witnesses has been recorded so far. In order to prove that the delay has not been caused or occasioned…
🔒
Continue readingLogin or create an account to access the complete content.Login / Register

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