2023 Y L R 2036
[Balochistan (Sibi Bench)]
Before Iqbal Ahmed Kasi, J
MUHAMMAD ASLAM ---Applicant
Versus
The STATE--- Respondent
Criminal Bail Application No. S -12 of 2023, decided on 3rd March, 2023.
(a) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) ---
----S. 497(2) ---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 302, 147, 148 & 149--- Qatl-i-amd, rioting,
armed with deadly weapon and common object ---Bail, grant of ---Delayed FIR ---Further
inquiry--- Scope ---Prosecution case was that the accused (Levies employee) along with others
had fired upon the brother of complainant, who was performing his duties as Moalim -ul-
Quran at a government school, due to which he died---Accused contended that the deceased
was injured in counter firing with the Levies authorities ---FIR was lodged with a delay of 15
days, that too, without any plausible explanation and no specific role was attributed to any of the accused ---Case was one of further inquiry---Accused was admitted to bail, in
circumstances.
(b) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) ---
----S. 497(2) ---Bail---Further inquiry--- Scope ---Further inquiry is a question which must
have some nexus with the result of the case for which a tentative assessment of material on record is to be considered for reaching a just conclusion ---Case of further inquiry pre -
supposes the tentative assessment, which may create doubt with respect to the involvement of accused in the crime---Object of trial is to make an accused face the trial, and not to punish an under trial prisoner ---Basic idea is to enable the accused to answer criminal
prosecution against him, rather than, let him rot behind the bars ---Accused is entitled to
expeditious access to justice, which includes a right to fair and expeditious trial without any unreasonable and inordinate delay.
Zaigham Ashraf v. The State and others 2016 SCMR 18 and Alam Zaib and others v.
The State and others PLD 2014 SC 760 rel.
(c) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) ---
----S. 497(2) --- Bail--- Further inquiry--- Scope ---Whenever reasonable doubt arises with
regard to the participation of an accused person in the crime or about the truth, probability of the prosecution case and the evidence purported to be produced in support of charge, the
accused should not be deprived of benefit of bail and in such a situation, it would be better to
keep him on bail, than in jail, during the trial.
T.H. Khan and Nazish Noreen for Applicant.
Naseebullah, Deputy Prosecutor General for the State.
Date of hearing: 2nd March, 2023.
ORDER
IQBAL AHMED KASI, J. ---Applicant Muhammad Aslam son of Haibat Khan, who
is involved in case FIR No.01 of 2022, dated 02- 08-2022, registered with Police Station
Phelawagh, under Sections 302, 147, 148, 149, P.P.C. on the compliant of Tariq Ali son of Haji Muhammad Hayat, by filing this application, seeks post -arrest bail.
2. Brief facts arising out of the instant application are that on 18.07.2022, at about 05:00
p.m. the Levies employees, namely, Kamal Khan son of Rind Ali and Muhammad Aslam (applicant/accused) without any reason made firing upon his brother, namely, Muhammad Jameel, who was performing his duties as Mohalim -ul-Qur'an at Government High School
Malam, due to which he died, consequently, the FIR was lodged against the accused persons.
3. The applicant / accused was arrested and booked in the instant case. After usual
investigation, challan of the case was submitted before the District and Sessions Judge, Dera Bugti at Sui ('the trial Court').
4. The applicant/accused moved bail application before the trial Court, which was
rejected on 17.12.2022, hence the instant application.
5. Learned counsel for the applicant/ accused contended that the FIR was lodged after
delay of about 15 days, without any plausible explanation and no specific role has been attributed to him. He further argued that actually the said Muhammad Jameel son of Muhammad Hayat, was injured in counter firing with Levies Authorities, which is evident from Marasalla, written by Tehsildar Phelawagh, and medical certificate, issued by the CMO RHC Balker, District Dera Bugti, which reflects that the injured was brought on 19.07.2022 for medical examination.
6. Learned DPG opposed the bail application on the ground that the applicant / accused
is specifically nominated in the FIR and no ill -will is available on record to show that the
applicant / accused has falsely been implicated in the instant case.
7. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the documents
appended with the application. A tentative perusal of the record shows that the FIR has been lodged with delay of 15 days, that too, without any plausible explanation and no specific role has been attributed to any of the accused. Record further reveals that the deceased was brought to Hospital for medical treatment on 19.07.2022, where, he was examined by the
concerned Doctor and in this respect a medical certificate was also issued, thus, the case of
applicant/ accused is one of further inquiry. It is well settled that further inquiry is a question which must have some nexus with the result of the case for which a tentative assessment of material on record is to be considered for reaching a just conclusion. The case of further inquiry pre -supposes the tentative assessment, which may create doubt with respect to the
involvement of accused in the crime. It is also well settled that the object of a trial is to make
an accused face the trial, and not to punish an under trial prisoner. The basic idea is to enable
the accused to answer criminal prosecution against him, rather than, let him rot behind bars. The accused is entitled to expeditious access to justice, which includes a right to a fair and expeditious trial without any unreasonable and inordinate delay. In the case of Zaigham Ashraf v. The State and others (2016 SCMR 18), the Hon'ble Supreme Court, held that, "the words 'reasonable grounds' has contained in Section 497, Cr.P.C., required the prosecution to show to the Court that it was in possession of sufficient material / evidence, constituting 'reasonable ground' that accused had committed an offence falling within the prohibitory limb of Section 497, Cr.P.C. For getting the relief of bail, accused only had to show that the evidence/material collected by the prosecution and / or the defence plea taken by him created reasonable doubt/ suspicion in the prosecution case and he was entitled to avail the benefit of it." While the dictum laid down in the case of Alam Zaib and others v. The State and others (PLD 2014 SC 760), reasonable grounds had to be grounds which were legally tenable, admissible in evidence and appealing to a reasonable judicial mind as opposed to being whimsical, arbitrary or presumptuous.
8. I am also of the view that whenever reasonable doubt arises with regard to the
participation of an accused person in the crime or about the truth, probability of the prosecution case and the evidence purposed to be produced in support of charge, the accused
should not be deprived of benefit of bail and in such a situation, it would be better to keep him on bail, than in jail, during the trial.
9. Thus, in view of what has been discussed hereinabove, I am inclined to allow the
instant bail application and the applicant Muhammad Aslam son of Haibat Khan, is admitted to bail subject to furnishing surety bonds in the sum of Rs.2,00,000/ - (rupees two hundred
thousand) with PR of the like amount to the satisfaction of the Additional Registrar of this Court or the trial Court.
Needless to mention here that the observations made hereinabove are tentative in nature
and the trial Court shall not be influenced from the same and decide the main case purely on its own merits.
SA/73/Bal. Bail granted.This judgment is reproduced from a publicly available source for informational purposes and does not constitute legal advice. If you believe this listing contains an error,
let us know.