TAHIR ALI TAHIR Versus State

ORDER

MALIK HAQ NAWAZ, J.---- The petitioner was booked for the above offences vide FIR No. 14/2015 dated 26-04-2015 registered at Police Station City Gahkuch District Ghizer.

2. The petitioner was sent to face trial on the above charges in Court of ATC Gilgit. The petitioner filed a Writ Petition No.161/2015 for transfer of the case from the Court of ATC to the Court of ordinary jurisdiction, which was allowed by this bench vide order dated 05-04-2016 and the case was transferred to the Court of learned Sessions Judge Ghizer.

3. The petitioner applied for bail in trial which was declined vide order dated 14-05-2016 and being dis-satisfied from the said order, the petitioner has approached this Court for concession of bail.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner/accused submitted at bar that the petitioner is behind the bar over a period of 1-1/2 years and trial of the case has not yet been concluded and the conclusion of trial is not insight in near future. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the petitioner has already completed a statutory period of one year in custody and has become entitled for concession of bail irrespective of other merits/demerits of the case. The learned counsel relied on 2014 PCr.LJ 1464 in support of his contention.

5. The Dy.A.G was not present today, however he was heard at length on previous date of hearing and on last date of hearing both the parties were directed to submit case laws pro and contra. The contention of the learned Dy.A.G was that the petitioner is directly charged in the FIR and the eye-witnesses of the occurrence have fully implicated him for provocative speech in general public gathering. The learned Dy. A.G submits that there is prima-facie case against the petitioner and he is not entitled for the concession of bail.

6. We have heard the parties at length and perused the record of the case with their valuable assistance. It is not denied that the petitioner is behind the bars since more than 1-1/2 years without any substantial progress in the case. Without commenting on the merits of the case to avoid prejudice to either of the parties, we are of the view that the petitioner has been able to make out a case for grant of bail.

7. Therefore, bail is allowed. The petitioner/accused is admitted to bail subject to furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs. 500000/-(Five lac) with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court.

JK/239/GB Bail allowed.