Citation Name: 2025 YLR 622 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDHBookmark this Case Mukhtiar Ali Chandio vs State S

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

Citation Name: 2025 YLR 622 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDHBookmark this Case Mukhtiar Ali Chandio VS State S.497(1), third proviso---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 409, 419, 420, 468, 471, 477-A & 34---Prevention of Corruption Act (II of 1947), S.5---National Accountability Ordinance (XVIII of 1999), Ss. 9(a), (iii), (iv), (v), (vi), (xi), (xii), 10 & 20---Anti-Money Laundering Act (VII of 2010), Ss. 3 & 4---Criminal breach of trust, cheating by personation, cheating, forgery of valuable security, will etc., forgery, using as genuine a forged document, falsification of account, common intention, criminal misconduct, corruption and corrupt practices, money laundering---Bail, grant of---Statutory ground of delay in conclusion of trial---Allegations against the applicants were that they misappropriated government funds meant for acquisition of land for construction of portion of a Motorway---Statutory bail on the ground of delay under S.497, Cr.P.C, was not a discretionary relief to be given by the Courts---Once all the limbs of the third proviso of S.497, Cr.P.C had been made out, bail would be granted as of right---Since none of the applicants had been accused of an offence punishable with death the first limb was made out---All of the applicants had been in jail for a period of about 18 months and no witness had been examined, thus no delay had been caused on the part of accused/ applicants in the conclusion of the trial, and as such the second limb was made out---Record showed that there were 43 accused who would all be entitled to cross-examine 208 witnesses through a separte counsel so it was hard to see how such a trial could be concluded in maximum five years---In such circumstances, it would be unjust and potentially a violation of various articles of the Constitution to keep the applicants behind bars especially as they might be acquitted at the end of the trial and no compensation would be available to them despite such a long period of incarceration---None of the applicants was a previously convicted offender for an offence punishable with death or imprisonment for life or was a person who, in the opinion of the Court, was a hardened, desperate or dangerous criminal or was accused of an act of terrorism punishable with death or imprisonment for life---Since all the applicants had met all the requirements of the third proviso to S. 497(1), Cr.P.C, they were all entitled to statutory bail on the grounds of delay in conclusion of their trial as of right---Bail applications were allowed, in circumstances.

Citation Name: 2025 YLR 622 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDHBookmark this Case Mukhtiar Ali Chandio vs State S — 2025 YLR 622 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2025 YLR