MUHAMMAD IBRAHIM vs STATE
This criminal petition for post-arrest bail arises from a murder case where the petitioner sought bail on grounds of further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The petitioner argued that his role was limited to raising a 'Lalkara' after the firing, that a co-accused with a similar role was granted bail, and that he was being falsely implicated due to prior litigation. Conversely, the State opposed the bail, highlighting that the petitioner was placed in column No. 3 of the challan, the charge had already been framed, and the trial was at the evidence stage. The Court held that since the charge had been framed and the trial was proceeding to the evidence stage, it was inappropriate to delve into the merits of the petitioner's role or the motive attributed to him at the bail stage. Consequently, the Court dismissed the bail petition, adhering to the principle that where a trial is imminent and the charge is framed, bail should generally be refused unless exceptional circumstances exist.
- Does the framing of a charge and the commencement of evidence preclude the grant of post-arrest bail?
- Is a petitioner entitled to bail when the trial is at the evidence stage and the accused is placed in column No. 3 of the challan?
- Section 497(2), Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 265-C, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
'In support of this petition, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that "Lalkara" which was allegedly raised by petitioner according to the FIR 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bail by this Court and against the order of this Court an application for cancellation of bail was moved, which was withdrawn from the Apex Court, that alongwith petitioner his son Mohsin was also involved, that he was found innocent by the police and placed in column No.2 of the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 alongwith 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 eyewitness in that murder case. Adds that Muhammad Rafique complainant and injured Muhammad Sarwar are not son 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 P.Cr.LJ 1548, 2006 SCM R 966 and 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 PWs as required u/S. 265-C Cr.P.C. were delivered on 15.11.2006, thereafter again case was fixed for supplying the copies as required u/S. 265-C Cr.P.0 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 u/S 265-C Cr.P.0 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 trial 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 for evidence 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 Crl. 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 nor 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
- RASHEED AHMED vs STATE and another PLJ 2013 Cr.C. (Lahore) 42