MUHAMMAD BOOTA vs THE STATE
This matter concerns a petition for post-arrest bail filed by the petitioner, Muhammad Boota, who was accused of criminal trespass and murder. The petitioner contended that he was falsely implicated, the FIR story was unbelievable, the recovery was planted, and the investigation was complete, thereby entitling him to bail under the principle of further inquiry. The State opposed the application, noting that the petitioner was specifically named in the FIR for causing the death of the complainant's brother and that the offense fell within the prohibitory clause of the relevant criminal procedure law. Upon review, the Court held that the petitioner was accused of a heinous offense carrying a maximum sentence of death, which placed the case within the prohibitory clause of the governing statute. The Court emphasized that bail is a discretionary relief to be exercised with caution and that delay in trial is not an automatic ground for bail in such serious cases. Consequently, the Court dismissed the bail petition, finding no merit in the request.
- Does the delay in trial constitute an automatic ground for the grant of bail in heinous offenses?
- Is an accused person charged with an offense carrying a maximum sentence of death entitled to bail as a matter of course?
- Does an offense falling within the prohibitory clause of Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, generally preclude the grant of bail?
- Section 497(1), Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 497(2), Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
' While seeking bail of the petitioner, learned counsel for the petitioner, in support of this petition, submits that the petitioner has falsely been involved in this case, that the story given in the F.I.R. Is totally unbelievable; that the recovery has been planted; that he is behind the bars for the last six months but no challan has been submitted; that the investigation is complete he is no more required for further investigation and that, in the afore-referred circumstances, this case, being one of further inquiry falling under subsection (2) to section 497 petitioner is entitled to the concession of bail by this Court.
2. On the other hand, while opposing the prayer for bail made by the petitioner, learned State counsel submits that the petitioner is specifically named in the F.I.R. Having caused an injury on the person of the deceased; that the petitioner, along with others criminally trespassed into the house of the complainant while armed with fire-arm and in consequence to the shot fired by the petitioner, complainant's brother Muhammad Amin died there and then; that the challan has already been submitted; that the offence alleged falls within the prohibitory clause of section 497(1), Cr.P.C. And that since the offence is heinous one, therefore, petitioner is not entitled to the concession of bail by this Court.
3. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, have gone through the record and have also given anxious consideration to their respective submissions made at the bar.
4. There are in all four accused persons in the case i.e, two were mentioned as Muhammad Boota (petitioner) and Allah Ditta and two were unknown. The petitioner, along with others criminally trespassed into the house of the complainant while armed with fire-arm and in consequence to the shot fired by the petitioner, complainant's brother Muhammad Amin died at the spot. The offence alleged against the petitioner falls within the prohibitory clause of section 497(1), Cr.P.C.
And that since the offence is heinous one, therefore, petitioner is not entitled to the concession of bail by this Court. It is a discretionary relief which is ought to be exercised with utmost care and caution. Even otherwise delay in trial is no ground for the grant of bail. He is accused of an offence which provided maximum sentence of death and the accused involved in the cases provided for sentence of death, life or more than ten years are normally not granted bail by the Superior Courts unless there are exceptionable grounds to exercise such a discretion in favour of the accused. In the afore-referred circumstances, this Court is of the prima-facie, view that the offence alleged against the petitioner falls within the prohibitory clause of section 497(1), Cr.P.C. And the petitioner is not entitled to the concession of bail. Resultantly, this petition is hereby dismissed having no merit.
Bail .
Cited by 1 case
- AMEEN SAQIB vs THE STATE and anothers 2012 P Cr. L J 577