Nasir Mdhmood vs Ashfaq And Another
This criminal matter concerns a petition for the cancellation of bail granted to the respondent by the Additional Sessions Judge. The core legal question was whether the trial court exercised its discretion properly in granting post-arrest bail to an accused person after the charge had already been framed and the trial had commenced. The petitioner contended that the respondent was named in the F.I.R. with a specific role, and that the trial court failed to consider that the charge had been framed, thereby violating established Supreme Court precedents. The High Court held that the trial court's bail order was deficient and failed to account for the commencement of the trial. The Court emphasized that once a charge is framed and the trial is underway, bail should not be granted in cases falling within the prohibitory clause of the relevant criminal procedure law. Consequently, the Court accepted the petition, cancelled the respondent's bail, and ordered him to be taken into custody to face the ongoing trial.
- Can bail be granted to an accused person after the charge has been framed and the trial has commenced?
- Does an offence falling within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 preclude the grant of bail once the trial has begun?
- Is a trial court required to consider the stage of the trial when adjudicating a bail application?
- Section 325, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 460, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 497(1), Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 497(2), Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER KH. MUHAMMAD SHARIF, J.- Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that respondent was named in the F.I.R.; that he held the deceased with Japha; that the rifle which was belonging to the deceased was recovered from the respondent; that charge was framed by learned Addl. Sessions Judge on 6.3.2006; that he had summoned the prosecution witnesses for 13.3.2006; that on the said date prosecution witnesses were present but he did not record their statements and thereafter he granted bail to the respondent vide order dated 15.3.2006 without mentioning the fact that the charge has been framed and the trial has commenced. He has relied upon Muhammad Sadik and others v. The State (1980 SCM R 203), Hakim Ali and 3 others v. The State (1979 SCM R 114) and Muhammad Nawaz v. The State {2002 SCM R 1381).
2. On the other Viand learned counsel for the respondent submits that respondent has been falsely implicated in this case; that he was arrested and was severely tortured by the- police and when he was near to death the police in order to save his skin got a false case registered against the respondent under Section 325, PPC; that five witnesses have already been examined and case is fixed for evidence tomorrow; that case of respondent was of further inquiry falling under sub- section (2) of Section 497, Cr.P.C, and it will not be possible at this stage to cancel the bail already granted to the respondent. He has relied upon 2004 SCM R 231, 2003 YLR 1596, 1999 P.Cr.L.J. 868, 20Q4 YLR 400, 1999 P.Cr.L.J. 799 and 2002 P.Cr.L.J. 1262.
3. I have heard learned counsels for the parties. Case was registered on 23.5.2005 at 4.15 A.M.
Against five persons while the occurrence had taken place on the same night at 2.15 a.m. Two persons were named in the F.I.R., one is present respondent and other is Irshad who is proclaimed offender, it is a case of lurking house trespass with intention to commit qatl-e-amd. Three accused were shown to be unknown. The contents of F.I.R, also show that the rifle belonging to the deceased was stolen from his house by his co-accused and the same was recovered from the present respondent.
4. Lam unable to understand that learned Addl. Sessions Judge who had taken cognizance of this case, framed the charge on 6.3.2006 and had summoned the prosecution witnesses for 13.3.2006, on the same day prosecution witnesses were present and he did not record their statements and granted bail to the respondent on 15.3.2006 for the reasons best know to him. I have gone through the bail order passed by learned Addl. Sessions Judge which is not up to the mark. He should have mentioned the fact that the charge has already been framed. The Honourable Supreme Court had held in case titled Muhammad Sadik and others v. The State (1980 SCM R 203), when the charge .Is framed and trial is likely to be commenced, bail cannot be granted. Leamed Addl. Sessions Judge has violated the judgment passed by Honourable Supreme Court of Pakistan.
5. Respondent is named in the F.I.R, with specific role. He was responsible for the murder of deceased and has "been charged under Section 460, PPC. Complainant has no malice or ulterior motive against respondent to falsely implicate him in this case. The offence falls within the prohibitory clause of Section 497(1), Cr.P.C, In this view of the matter, this petition is accepted and the bail already granted to the respondent is hereby withdrawn. He shall be taken into custody and shall be produced before learned Trial Court tomorrow because the case is fixed for evidence. The judgments cited by learned counsel for the respondent are totally inapplicable in this case. A copy of this order be sent to learned Addl. Sessions Judge for His guidance and he is directed to be careful in future while deciding the such like cases.