MUHAMMAD IBRAHIM alias BAWA vs THE STATE
This criminal petition arises out of a bail application filed before the Lahore High Court by the petitioner, Muhammad Ibrahim alias Bawa, facing trial in a murder case. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to post-arrest bail on the grounds of further inquiry, based on the specific attribution of a 'Lalkara' after the firing, counter-allegations of false implication, and parity with a co-accused who had earlier been granted bail. The Court dismissed the petition, holding that no case for bail was made out, particularly given that the trial had progressed with the framing of the charge and the case being fixed for recording evidence. The key principle laid down is that where the trial has advanced significantly to the stage of framing of charge and commencement of evidence, and the accused is prima facie connected with the crime, further detailed assessment of the merits and role attribution at the bail stage is generally unwarranted, and the petition ought to be dismissed.
- Whether post-arrest bail can be granted on the ground of further inquiry when the charge has already been framed and the trial is fixed for evidence?
- Does the grant of bail to a co-accused automatically entitle another accused to bail on the rule of consistency regardless of active role attribution and the stage of trial?
- Should the High Court delve into detailed appreciation of evidence and role attribution at the bail stage when the trial court has already commenced proceedings by framing a charge?
- Section 497(2), Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 265-C, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
' KHAWAJA MUHAMMAD SHARIF, J.---In support of this petition, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that "Lalkara" which was allegedly raised by petitioner according to the F.I.R. Was after the firing at the deceased, that co-accused Abdul Waheed Butt, who was assigned the role of abetment/conspiracy, was allowed bail by this Court and against the order of this Court an application for cancellation of bail was moved, which was withdrawn from the Apex Court, that along with petitioner his son Mohsin was also involved, that he was found innocent by the police and placed in Column No,2 of the challan, that he along with his son is being falsely implicated because it was the petitioner, who had lodged the case against the complainant party and others for the murder of his son Ali while Mohsin was eye-witness in that murder case. Adds that Muhammad Rafique complainant and injured Muhammad Sarwar are not sons of Muhammad Amin deceased because according to him the list of heirs attached by the police on the judicial file shows the name of father of both complainant and injured Muhammad Sarwar as Sajjad and that case of the petitioner is one, of further inquiry falling under sub-clause (2) of section 497, Cr.P.C. He has relied upon 1995 SCM R 343, 1993 SCM R 1992, 2003 SCM R 958, 2002 SCM R 1415, 2006 PCr.LJ 1548 and 2006 SCM R 966 and 2006 SCM R 1292.
2. On the other hand, learned A.P.G. Assisted by learned counsel for the complainant submits that challan was submitted on 25-9-2006, petitioner had been placed in Column No,3 of the challan, that copies of the statements of the P.Ws. As required under section 265-C, Cr.P.C. Were delivered on 15-11-2006, thereafter again case was fixed for supplying the copies as required under section 265-C, Cr.P.C. For 4-12-2006, that on 13-12-2006 Abdul Waheed Butt co-accused submitted an application that he was not given complete copies of the statements of the witnesses as required under section 265-C, Cr.P.C. So ultimately he was delivered those copies on 19-1-2007. He submits that some of the accused have engaged their counsel but some of the accused have not engaged their counsel so learned trail Court on 1-2-2007 appointed Mr. Rehan Zafar, Advocate at State expense to conduct the trial of this case in case their counsel do not turn up and now the case is fixed forevidence for 7-3-2007 as the charge has already been framed on 6-2-2007. Further submits that he was present at the spot, motive is also attributed to him and his case is totally different to that of Waheed Butt co-accused, who was allowed bail by this Court.
3. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. Although the bail granted to Waheed Butt co- accused by this Court was not cancelled by the Apex Court as Muhammad Rafique complainant had moved Criminal Petition No,823-L/2006, which was withdrawn after arguing the case at some length. Now as the charge has been framed and case is fixed for evidence for 7-3-2007 and petitioner has been placed in Column No,3 of the challan, I would not like to discuss further about the role of the petitioner whether motive was attributed to him or not but the fact remains that now the case is fixed for evidence for 7-3-2006. Reliance is placed upon 1980 SCM R 203. No case for bail is made out; therefore, this petition is dismissed.
Cited by 1 case
- MUHAMMAD RAMZAN alias KHAN Versus State 2013 MLD 798