ABDULLAH KHAN vs State S — 2023 YLR 2046 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

Fields are extracted from the reported citation and judgment text. Where a detail is not stated in the record, it is not shown.

ABDULLAH KHAN VS State S.497(1), 3rd proviso & 4th proviso---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 302, 324, 337-F(i), 337-F(iii), 337-F(v), 337-F(vi), 148 & 149---Qatl-i-amd, attempt to qatl-i-amd, hurt, rioting and unlawful assembly---Bail, refusal of---Delay in conclusion of trial occasioned by accused---Delaying tactics---Conduct of the accused---Record revealed an observation made by the Trial Court, in one of the orders mentioned at interim order sheets, with respect to the conduct of the accused persons, including the petitioner, who were applying every kind of delaying tactics, exerting pressure and displaying their influence in different ways during their trial---Although under 3rd proviso of subsection (1) to S. 497 of Criminal Procedure Code, 1898, an accused could be released on bail, who being an accused of offence punishable with death had been detained for such offence for a continuous period exceeding two years and whose trial for the said offence had not been concluded, however, 4th proviso of subsection (1) to S. 497 of Criminal Procedure Code, 1898, stipulated another exception---As per both the exceptions, the right to release on bail on the ground of delay in conclusion of trial was not available to an accused if; (i) the delay in conclusion of the trial was occasioned by an act or omission of the accused or by any other person acting on his behalf; (ii) the accused was a convicted offender for an offence punishable with death or imprisonment for life or was in the opinion of the Court a hardened, desperate or dangerous criminal or was accused of an act of terrorism punishable with death or imprisonment for life---Report (having been requisitioned by the High Court), inter alia, revealed multiple reasons for the delay in trial in the present case (like the bar was on strike, leaves availed by the Presiding Officer, pendency of the application(s) moved by a party) and as many as 25 adjournments having been sought by each party---However, two prosecution witnesses, examination-in-chief of whom had been recorded more than two and half years ago were not being cross-examined by the defense/petitioner on one pretext or the other; and the prosecution witnesses had already given up its two other witnesses, one being unnecessary while the other for reason that he (said witness) had not been appearing before the Court due to life threats extended by the accused persons---Thus, accused party had sought adjournments repeatedly on crucial hearings without any sufficient cause especially on the hearing fixed for cross-examination of prosecution witnesses already recorded and had also threatened the prosecution witness---Bail was refused to the petitioner, in circumstances.

ABDULLAH KHAN vs State S — 2023 YLR 2046 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2023 YLR