ABDUL AZIZ vs STATE
This criminal petition arises out of a bail application filed by the petitioner Abdul Aziz seeking post-arrest bail in a murder case. The core legal question revolves around whether the petitioner is entitled to post-arrest bail considering that he was declared innocent during police investigation, no weapon or recovery was attributed to him, his presence at the scene was not established, and the trial had not commenced despite the lapse of more than a year. The Lahore High Court held that while the police opinion is not strictly binding on the trial court, it remains an important circumstance to be considered along with other evidence. The court concluded that since the petitioner's presence was doubtful, no recovery was effected, and the statutory right to a speedy trial had been violated without fault on the petitioner's part, his case fell within the scope of further inquiry. Consequently, the court allowed the bail application subject to the furnishing of appropriate bail bonds.
- Whether the opinion of the investigating officer declaring an accused innocent is binding on the trial court?
- Does the failure to commence a trial for more than a year without fault of the accused make the case one of further inquiry for the purpose of bail?
- Can the absence of weapon recovery and unestablished presence at the scene of occurrence form grounds for granting post-arrest bail?
ORDER
On the last date of hearing i.e. 20.10.2006, learned counsel for the petitioner was directed to place on record order sheet of the trial Court to ascertain the stage of trial. The order sheet has been provided in the Court which shows that copies have not been distributed and charge has not been framed against the petitioner so far though the petitioner was arrested on 20.11.2005.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner mainly contended that allegation against the petitioner was false and not supported by the investigating officer. During the course of investigation the petitioner was declared innocent. The learned trial Court observed that though during the course of investigation petitioner was found innocent but opinion of police is not binding on the Court. The observation of learned trial Court is correct, however, the opinion of investigating officer/police is an important circumstance which has to be considered with other circumstances and copies of evidence.
3. The investigating officer present in the Court submits that he has investigated this case honestly.
The petitioner's presence at the scene of occurrence was not established. He further submits that as a matter of fact brother of petitioner, Arshad, has enmity with the complainant party and he has committed the murder, subject-matter of the present bail application but the petitioner has been involved in view of his relationship with accused Arshad. The record also shows that no weapon has been recovered from the petitioner, therefore, empties recovered from the place of occurrence cannot be used against the petitioner.
4. More than one year has passed but the trial of the petitioner has not commenced. The expeditious trial is a right of the petitioner which has been denied to him. The order sheet discloses that he has not caused any delay in the trial. This fact coupled with facts above mentioned the case of the petitioner appears to be a case of further inquiry, thus, for the reasons contained in this para as well as in the preceding para, this bail application is allowed subject to petitioner's furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- with two sureties in the like amount to the satisfaction of learned trial Court/Area Magistrate.