PLJ 2024 Cr.C. (Note) 65
Statutory
ground--Post-arrest bail--grant of--If time log is counted from date of arrest,
obviously then petitioner has already completed his statutory period of one
year which is required in case in hand--
PLJ 2024 Cr.C. (Note) 65
[Lahore High Court, Multan Bench]
Present: Muhammad Amjad Rafiq, J.
MUHAMMAD NAQI--Petitioner
versus
STATE, etc--Respondents
Crl. Misc. No. 6702-B of 2022, decided on 25.10.2022.
Criminal Procedure Code,
1898 (V of 1898)--
----S. 497, 3rd proviso--Pakistan
Penal Code, (XLV of 1860), Ss. 324/334/34--Statutory ground--Post-arrest
bail--grant of--If time log is counted from date of arrest, obviously then
petitioner has already completed his statutory period of one year which is
required in case in hand--Case of petitioner does not fall under 3rd proviso
to Section 497 Cr.P.C as neither he is hardened, desperate or dangerous
criminal nor a previous convict for an offence punishable with death or
imprisonment for life or accused of an act of terrorism--Once an accused earns
a right on statutory delay of trial, period thereafter if contains a fault on
his part, same shall not be a hurdle for enlarging him on
bail. [Para 3] A & B
PLD 2022 SC
112; 2022 SCMR 1 ref.
Khawaja
Qaisar Butt, Advocate
for Petitioner.
Mr. Hassan
Mehmood Khan Tareen, Deputy
Prosecutor General for State.
Mian
Muhammad Kazim Mirali, Advocate
for the Complainant.
Date of
hearing: 25.10.2022.
Order
Petitioner
seeks post arrest bail in case FIR No. 80/2020 registered under Sections 324,
334, 34, PPC at Police Station Rang Pur District Muzaffargarh on statutory
ground of delay in conclusion of trial.
2. I have
heard learned counsel for the parties as well as learned Deputy Prosecutor
General and perused the record.
3.
Petitioner was under the charge of causing fire-arm injury on the knee of right
leg of complainant’s father which resulted into amputation of such leg. Learned
counsel for the complainant states that delay in conclusion of trial is
attributed to the petitioner, whereas, pointed out that examination of chief of
two witnesses was recorded on 2.2.2022. If the time log is counted from the
date of arrest i.e. 6.10.2020, obviously then the petitioner has
already completed his statutory period of one year which is required in the
case in hand and further delay after statutory period even on the part of
accused should not be counted against him to enlarge the petitioner on bail;
case of the petitioner does not fall under 3rd proviso to Section 497, Cr.P.C.
as neither he is hardened, desperate or dangerous criminal nor a previous
convict for an offence punishable with death or imprisonment for life or
accused of an act of terrorism punishable with death or imprisonment for life.
Reliance in this respect has been placed in the case reported as “Nadeem
Samson versus The State and others” (PLD 2022 Supreme Court 112),
wherein, it has been observed by the apex Court that once an accused earns a
right on statutory delay of trial, the period thereafter if contains a fault on
his part, same shall not be a hurdle for enlarging him on bail. Similar was the
view point in another case reported as “Shakeel Shah versus The State
and others” (2022 SCMR 1). Resultantly, this petition is allowed on
statutory ground of delay in conclusion of trial and the petitioner is admitted
to bail subject to furnishing bail bond in the sum of Rs. 1,00,000/-(one lac)
with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of trial Court.
(M.A.B.) Petition
allowed
