ASHFAQ AHMAD BUTT vs MUHAMMAD AZAM
This petition for leave to appeal arose from a criminal matter where the complainant challenged the Lahore High Court's order granting post-arrest bail to the respondent, Muhammad Azam, who was accused in an FIR registered under sections 302/324/148/149/109 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, read with section 7 of the Anti-Terrorism Act 1997 and section 13 of the Arms Ordinance 1965. The core legal question was whether the High Court erred in granting bail when one injured eyewitness had retracted his statement, despite other eyewitnesses allegedly supporting the prosecution's case. The Supreme Court upheld the bail order, reasoning that the primary allegation against the respondent involved firing at the injured witness who subsequently failed to support the prosecution's case during the trial. Furthermore, the Court noted the significant delay of two and a half years in concluding the trial, for which the prosecution could not solely blame the accused. The Court affirmed that bail was rightly granted and dismissed the petition, while directing the trial court to conclude proceedings within six weeks.
- Does the retraction of a statement by a key injured witness justify the grant of bail to an accused?
- Can the prosecution blame the accused for trial delays to oppose a bail application when the trial has remained pending for over two years?
- Is the Supreme Court required to interfere with a High Court's bail order when the primary evidence against the accused has become doubtful?
- Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 324, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 148, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 149, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 109, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 7, Anti-Terrorism Act 1997
- Section 13, Arms Ordinance 1965
- Section 161, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
' KARAMAT NAZIR BHANDARI, J.--- Respondent No,1 Muhammad Azam is an accused in case F.I.R.
No,293 of 2003, dated 23-8-2003 registered at Police Station Mozang, Lahore under sections 302/324/148/149/109, P.P.C. Read with section 7 of the Anti-Terrorism Act and section 13 of the Arms Ordinance, 1965, and has been allowed bail by a Division Bench of the Lahore High Court on 28-6- 2006 on the main ground that Zahoor Ahmad injured P.W. Has not supported the allegation against the respondent. Through this petition the complainant seeks leave to appeal against the order of the High Court dated 28th June, 2006.
2. It is argued by Mr. M.A. Zaffar, learned Advocate Supreme Court for the petitioner that even if Zahoor Ahmad injured P.W. Has not supported the allegation, the remaining eye-witnesses namely Ashfaq Ahmad, Mumtaz Ahmad and Waqar Ahmad have supported the allegation in their statements under section 161, Cr.P.C. He has explained that because the accused are applying delaying tactics, the trial is not progressing and for this reason the testimony of these witnesses has not yet been recorded. Mr. Muhammad Yasin Chughtai, learned Advocate Supreme Court appearing for the respondent-accused has supported the impugned order by submitting that the said accused was arrested on 6-1-2004 and for more than 2-1/2 years he has been rotting in jail, without much progress in trial. He has denied that the accused are delaying the completion of trial.
He further stated that even during investigation the allegation against Muhammad Azam were found incorrect:
3. We have gone through the F.I.R. And the direct allegation against Azam accused is that with his weapon he fired at injured Zahoor. Admittedly Zahoor, in his statement during trial has not supported the allegation. In the circumstances the testimony of other eye-witnesses supporting the allegation may not be very helpful to the prosecution. If the trial is not concluded for 2-1/2 years the prosecution cannot throw the entire blame on the side of the accused. Resultantly we are of the opinion that the respondent has rightly been granted bail and no interference by this Court is called for.
4. With a view to ensure ends of justice we direct the trial Court to complete the trial expeditiously but not later than six weeks. Needless to clarify that whatever is stated in this order is tentative and the Courts below will proceed to decide the case on its own merit uninfluenced by any observation/finding recorded in this order.
5. Leave is refused and this petition is dismissed.
Cited by 3 cases
- Hussain @ Muhammad Hussain vs The State 2021 SHC 42
- SHAH NAWAZ vs THE STATE 2010 YLR 3182
- SHAH MUHAMMAD Versus State 2008 PCrLJ 1596