| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2021 SLG 1872 2021 SLD 1872 2021 PLJ 744 |
Lahore High Court
Crl. Misc. No. 69483-B of 2020, decided on 11.3.2021, Date of hearing: 11.3.2021.
MALIK SHAHZAD AHMED KHAN, JUSTICE.
Mr. Azam Nazir Tarar, Advocate for Petitioner. Ch. Muhammad Ishaq, Additional Prosecutor General for State. Syed Afzal Shah Bukhari, Advocate for Complainant.
Crl. Misc. No. 69483-B of 2020, decided on 11.3.2021, Date of hearing: 11.3.2021.
MALIK SHAHZAD AHMED KHAN, JUSTICE.
Mr. Azam Nazir Tarar, Advocate for Petitioner. Ch. Muhammad Ishaq, Additional Prosecutor General for State. Syed Afzal Shah Bukhari, Advocate for Complainant.
UMAR
VS
STATE ETC.
Law: Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)
Section: 497
Law: Pakistan Penal Code, 1860
Section: 302/365/147/149
Criminal Procedure Code, 1898 (V of 1898)-- ----S. 497--Pakistan Penal Code, (XLV of 1860), Ss. 302/365/147/149--Post-arrest bail, dismissal of engaged his counsel after seven months from framing of charge and he (petitioner) himself sought adjournments to engage his counsel--As petitioner sought adjournments on crucial dates, when prosecution witnesses appeared before Court, therefore, he is not entitled to relief of post arrest bail on ground of delay--Although petitioner has argued that if period of adjournments sought by petitioner is excluded from consideration, even then a period of more than two years has elapsed from date of arrest of petitioner but there is no substance for petitioner because petitioner is unable to cite a single , where PWs repeatedly appeared before Court and adjournments were sought on said date by accused and even then bail was granted to said accused after excluding period of his detention--Bail was dismissed. PLJ 1998 SC 1214. ORDER Through the instant petition, Umar petitioner seeks post arrest bail in case FIR No. 1319/2018, dated 26.06.2018, offences under Sections 302/365/147/149, PPC, registered at police station Kahna, Lahore. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he will not argue the instant bail petition on merits as the same may prejudice the case of either party and will advance his arguments only to the extent of ground taken by the petitioner regarding delay in conclusion of his trial. 3. Arguments heard. Record perused. 4. I have noted that the petitioner was arrested in this case on 30.08.2018 and report under Section 173, Cr.P.C. was submitted before the learned trial Court on 20.02.2019, whereas charge was framed against the petitioner on 22.03.2019. It is evident from the perusal of attested copy of order sheet of the learned trial Court that on 06.04.2019, the complainant along with his PWs was present but the case was adjourned on the request of the accused/petitioner as he wanted to hire the services of a learned counsel in this case. On 22.04.2019, although the complainant was directed to produce his private witnesses but even on the said date, a request was made by the accused/petitioner to…
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