IHTSHAM-UL-HAQ alias Shani vs THE STATE
This matter concerns a petition for post-arrest bail filed by the petitioner, who sought release on the grounds of alleged innocence, lack of incriminating recovery, and an alibi supported by witnesses. The petitioner had been incarcerated for one year. The State opposed the application, noting that the trial was actively in progress with seven prosecution witnesses already examined. The core legal question was whether bail should be granted when the trial is at an advanced stage and evidence is being recorded. The Court held that when a trial is in progress and nearing conclusion, it is inappropriate to delve into the merits of the case during bail proceedings, as doing so might prejudice either party. Relying on established precedents from the Supreme Court of Pakistan, the Court affirmed that where a trial has commenced and is likely to conclude in the near future, the concession of bail should be declined to avoid premature assessment of evidence. Consequently, the petition was dismissed.
- Should a court grant post-arrest bail when the trial is already in progress and witnesses are being examined?
- Does a court prejudice the merits of a case by granting bail while the trial is ongoing?
- Is the fact that a trial is nearing conclusion a valid ground for refusing bail?
ORDER
' KHAWAJA MUHAMMAD SHARIF, J.---Learned counsel for the petitioner, in support of this bail petition contends that the petitioner has falsely been involved in this case; that the petitioner was found innocent by SP, Investigation (Malik Tahir Mehmood); that no recovery was effected from him; that motive is not proved; that the petitioner was not present at the spot and was in marriage ceremony, many persons appeared before the Investigating Officer to support the above contention; that he is behind the bars for the last one year; that the case of the petitioner is one of further inquiry and that the petitioner is entitled to the concession of bail.
2. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State assisted by complainant's learned counsel submits that the trial is in progress and seven witnesses have already been recorded and that the petitioner is not entitled to the discretionary relief of bail from this Court.
3. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, have given consideration to the submissions made at the bar and have also gone through the record.
4. Admittedly, the trial has started and seven witnesses have already been recorded. As the trial is in progress, so, I would not like to comment on the merits of the case at this stage, suffice it to say, no case for bail is made out. This Court seeks guidance from the case of Muhammad Sadik and others v. The State (1980 SCM R 203), wherein, case had already been fixed for trial, the august Supreme Court of Pakistan, while declining bail to the accused, held as under:-- "....In that view of the matter we think that when the trial is to commence shortly and a date. Has already been fixed by the Court, it is not fair to go into the merits of the case in the form of a bail application at this juncture, and the case is therefore, not tit for grant of special leave to appeal."
' In this regard further reliance can be placed on Allah Ditta and others v. The State (1990 SCM R 307) wherein case had already been fixed for evidence and the bail was refused by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and on Muhammad Nawaz v. The State (2002 SCM R 1381) wherein charge was framed and testimony of one witness was recorded and bail was declined by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan. At page 1382 of the case of Muhammad Nawaz (supra), the apex Court observed as under:-- , "Since the trial is likely to be concluded in the near future, assuch, we are deliberately not attending to merits of the case lest it may prejudice the case of either party. In this view of the matter, we are not inclined to grant the concession of post-arrest bail to the petitioner at this stage ".
5. In the afore-referred circumstances and respectfully following the dictum laid down by the august Supreme Court of Pakistan in the case cited above, I find no merit in this petition which is hereby dismissed.