SHAKEEL AHMAD vs THE STATE
This matter concerns a petition for post-arrest bail filed by the petitioner, Shakeel Ahmad, who sought release in a criminal case. The petitioner argued that he had been incarcerated for six months, the alleged offence did not fall within the prohibitory clause of the relevant criminal procedure law, and he had been falsely implicated. Conversely, the complainant alleged that the petitioner had fabricated applications to high judicial and executive authorities in the name of the complainant, Mst. Mumtaz, which was corroborated by a handwriting expert report. Furthermore, the complainant contended that the petitioner had threatened witnesses and delayed trial proceedings. The Court held that while bail is generally a rule in non-prohibitory offences, it remains a discretionary relief that may be refused under specific circumstances. Given the evidence of fabrication and the petitioner's conduct in delaying the trial, the Court declined to exercise its discretion to grant bail. The petition was dismissed on the grounds that no case for bail was made out, emphasizing that the Court would not engage in deeper appreciation of evidence at this stage.
- Is the grant of bail a rule in offences not punishable with death, imprisonment for life, or ten years?
- Can a court refuse bail in non-prohibitory offences based on the conduct of the accused?
- Does the commencement of a trial preclude the court from deeper appreciation of evidence during bail proceedings?
- Section 497(1), Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
' Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is behind the bars for the last six months; that the offence does not fall within the prohibitory clause of section 497(1), Cr.P.C.; that he has falsely been implicated in this case; that the allegation levelled in the petition by Mst. Mumtaz before the learned Sessions Judge are totally false, fabricated and concocted one and that it is a case of further inquiry.
6. Learned counsel for the complainant, on the other hand, submits that the petitioner submitted applications to the President of Pakistan, the Chief Justice of Supreme Court and the Chief Justice of Lahore High Court stating therein that Mst. Mumtaz had been illegally detained by her parents.
Mst. Mumtaz was summoned in C ourt and her statement was recorded. She stated that she never made any such applications to the high-ups of the judiciary and the Chief Executive rather she levelled allegation against the petitioner that in fact the applications in question were given by Shakeel petitioner. There is report of the Handwriting Expert which proves that all the applications submitted by Mst. Mumtaz, were written by Shakeel petitioner. Further submits that the petitioner had been threatening her and other witnesses with dire consequences and that the petitioner is not entitled to the grant of this discretionary relief. Adds that on the last date of hearing six witnesses were present but the petitioner could not produce his counsel.
7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. In the offences which are not punishable with death, imprisonment for life and ten years, the grant of bail is a rule and refusal is an exception but this is a case where refusal can easily be made due to the above circumstances. This Court will not go into deeper appreciation of evidence because the trial has commenced and six witnesses were present on the last date of hearing but the petitioner could not produce his counsel. No case for bail is made out. This petition, having no merit is accordingly dismissed.