ABDUL AZIZ vs THE STATE
This is a criminal petition for post-arrest bail arising from a murder case where the petitioner, Abdul Aziz, sought bail after being detained for over a year without the commencement of the trial. The core legal question involved whether the petitioner was entitled to bail on the grounds of statutory delay in the trial, lack of recovery of any weapon, and being declared innocent during the police investigation. The Lahore High Court held that while the police opinion is not strictly binding on the trial court, it remains an important circumstance to consider alongside other evidence. The court observed that no weapon was recovered, the petitioner's presence at the scene was not established, and more than a year had passed without the trial commencing or any delay being attributed to the petitioner. Consequently, the court ruled that the petitioner's case fell within the scope of further inquiry and allowed the bail application, laying down the principle that undue and uncaused delay in the commencement of a trial, coupled with exoneration by the investigating officer and absence of incriminating recoveries, entitles an accused to post-arrest bail.
- Is the opinion of an Investigating Officer declaring an accused innocent binding on the trial court?
- Does the lack of commencement of a trial for over a year, without fault of the accused, make the case one of further inquiry?
- Can bail be granted when no weapon is recovered from the accused and his presence at the scene is not established?
ORDER
' SYED SHABBAR RAZA RIZVI, J.--- 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.
Cited by 1 case
- MEERAL and another vs THE STATE 2010 P Cr. L J 1300