MUHAMMAD IDREES vs THE STATE
This matter concerns a post-arrest bail petition filed by the petitioner, Muhammad Idrees, who sought release in a criminal case involving allegations of assault, abduction, and robbery. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to bail despite the offence not falling within the prohibitory clause of Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The Court observed that the petitioner had previously absconded for over two years following the dismissal of his pre-arrest bail petition and was involved in multiple other heinous criminal cases. Relying on the principles established by the Supreme Court of Pakistan in Tariq Bashir v. The State, the Court held that bail is not a matter of right even in non-prohibitory offences. It determined that the petitioner’s case fell within the exceptions regarding the likelihood of abscondence and the danger of the offence being repeated. Consequently, the Court dismissed the bail petition, affirming that judicial discretion must be exercised against granting bail when such risks to the administration of justice and public safety are present.
- Is bail a matter of right for an accused in a case that does not fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- What are the exceptions under which bail can be refused in cases not falling within the prohibitory clause of Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Does a history of abscondence and involvement in other criminal cases justify the refusal of bail?
- Section 514, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 497(1), Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
' KHAWAJA MUHAMMAD SHARIF, J---At the time of issuing notice in this bail petition I had also called report from the learned trial Court about the fate of the trial which has been received and perused.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner, in support of this petition, submits that the petitioner is behind the bar for the last about three months; that he has falsely been implicated in this case; that there is criminal litigation pending between the petitioner and the complainant party; that no recovery has been effected from him; that the trial is not in progress and that the petitioner is entitled to the concession of bail by this Court.
3. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State submits that the challan has been submitted in Court and he is not entitled to bail.
4. Heard. Petitioner's bail before arrest petition (Crl. Misc. No,1191-B/03) was dismissed vide this Court's order dated 11-3-2003 on the ground that he did not appear before the learned Sessions Judge on the date of confirmation who dismissed his petition and surety was proceeded under section 514 Cr.P.C. For a long period of two years three months after dismissal of his above bail before arrest petition, petitioner did not surrender his person to the process of law and ultimately he was arrested on 28-6-2005. According to the police record, petitioner is also involved in many criminal cases of heinous nature like murder, hurt, hadood, abduction and Arms Ordinance. It is not an ordinary case of hurt. The allegations against the petitioner is that he, while armed with fire- arms along with his co-accused, assaulted complainant's sister near the Civil Court premises, at first she was tried to be abducted and then the petitioner caused her pistol butt blows followed by blows with their respective weapons of offence by his co-accused in the said exercise, according to the contents of the F.I.R., she not only received injuries on different parts of her body but her wearing clothes were torn and she was made naked to the public view, her wearing golden ornaments were forcibly taken away by the petitioner. It was further alleged in the F.I.R. That victim lady Mahnaz had filed a suit for jactitation of marriage against co-accused Sharif due to which grudge the petitioner and his co-accused have committed the said offence although the offence does not fall within the prohibitory clause of section 497(1), Cr.P.C. Yet bail cannot be claimed as of right. This ratio was laid down by the apex Court of the country in the judicial hierarchy in Muhammad Siddique v. Imtiaz Begum and 2 others (2002 SCM R 442). Even otherwise, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Tariq Bashir and 5 others v. The State (PLD 1995 Supreme Court 34), has laid down the following four exceptions when bail can be refused to an accused in a case which does not fall within the prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C. And case of the petitioner falls within exceptions (a) and (c). Those four, exceptions are as under:-- "(a) where there is likelihood of abscondence of the accused;
(b) where there is apprehension of the accused tampering with the prosecution evidence;
(c) where there is danger of the offence being repeated if the-accused is released on bail; and
(d) where the accused is a previous convict."
5. In the afore-referred circumstances and following the dictum laid down by the august Supreme Court of Pakistan, I find no merit in this C petition which is hereby dismissed.