MUHAMMAD ISHAQ vs THE STATE
This matter arises from a criminal petition seeking post-arrest bail in a double murder case where the petitioner was implicated in kidnapping and subsequent murder after victims were allegedly seen in his illegal custody. The core legal question concerns whether the petitioner is entitled to bail on the grounds of statutory further inquiry and parity with co-accused, alongside considerations of previous abscondence and delay in trial. The Lahore High Court held that no case for bail is made out, dismissing the petition while noting the gravity of the double murder, the prima facie evidence connecting the petitioner, his prolonged evasion of law, and delays attributed to the defense. The key principle laid down is that where an accused has played hide and seek with the court and faces serious capital charges supported by ocular and circumstantial evidence, bail ought to be refused, and trial courts may adopt strict measures like day-to-day hearings to counter defense delays.
- Whether post-arrest bail can be granted in a double murder case where the accused allegedly kept the deceased in illegal custody prior to the murder?
- Does the concealment of prior bail applications disentitle an accused to relief?
- Can the trial court close the right of cross-examination if the defense counsel delays proceedings without reasonable grounds?
- Section 497(2), Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 497(1), Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
' KHAWAJA MUHAMMAD SHARIF, J.---It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner the case of petitioner is on similar footing to that of his co-accused Naufal Zahoor and Muhammad Akhtar who were allowed bail by this Court, he has referred writ petition filed by Mst. Anaran Bibi, especially paragraph 7 of the writ petition in which petitioner was respondent No,2 and has read statement of Mst. Anaran Bibi; that petitioner was transferred to Police Station, Ghalib Market, Gulberg, Lahore on 18-3-1999 prior to the occurrence and that case of petitioner is of further inquiry falling under subsection (2) of section 497, Cr.P.C.
2. On the other hand learned State counsel assisted by learned counsel for the complainant submits that nine prosecution witnesses in this case have been examined out of whom six are those who had seen the two deceased in the illegal custody of the petitioner prior to the occurrence; that there are two deceased who were kidnapped by the petitioner along with his co- accused and thereafter they were murdered; that 13 adjournments have been obtained by learned defence counsel and that the matter is being prolonged on behalf of the petitioner and not by the prosecution side; that in the writ petition on the statements of learned counsel for the parties Mr. Muhammad Asghar Cheema, DSP, Shandra Circle, most honest officer was appointed Investigating Officer in this case who conducted the investigation and found the petitioner guilty of offence under section 302, P.P.C. And that the petitioner is playing hide and seek with the Court and that the offence falls within the prohibitory clause of section 497(1), Cr.P.C.
3. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. First of all I havegone through the certification given on the last page of the application, it was mentioned that it was first application. I deem it proper and had issued the notice. Today I have seen the certificate in which word '1st' has been rubbed and second has been written. It is third application, first was bail before arrest, which was dismissed, and then there was another application of bail after arrest which was also dismissed. In fact this is third application.
4. The other point which has been raised before this Court is that a writ petition was filed by Mst.
Anaran Bibi, the statement of Mst. Anaran Bibi was not attached by learned counsel who was appearing on behalf of petitioner in the first after arrest application of the petitioner, that cannot be taken into consideration in view of law laid down by Honourable Supreme Court of Pakistan, reported in Zubair v. The State (PLD 1986 SC 173), while occurrence had taken place in 1999.
Petitioner had been playing hide and seek with the Court for five years.
' He did not surrender before the Court or before the police. All this was noted by me in Criminal Miscellaneous No,4356-B-2005. I would not like to discuss all the points raised by learned counsel for the parties because it may not prejudice case of either party before the learned Trial Court but the fact remains that it is double murder case. Two deceased were seen in the illegal custody of present petitioner prior to the occurrence and thereafter they were murdered. Till today nine prosecution witnesses have been examined by learned Trial Court and 13 adjournments have been obtained by learned defence counsel. In this view of the matter, I am of the considered opinion that no case for bail is made out. This petition is dismissed. However, learned Trial Court is directed to hear this case on day to day basis. In case learned defence counsel does not appear without any reasonable ground, he is empowered to close the right of their cross-examination.