THE STATE vs MUHAMMAD AZAM
This matter arises from a criminal case where the respondent was accused of firearm injury during a robbery-related incident and remained a fugitive for ten months before being declared a proclaimed offender and subsequently arrested. The respondent was granted post-arrest bail by a Magistrate on flimsy grounds, ignoring material aspects such as the recovery of a weapon, statements implicating the accused, and his status as a proclaimed offender. The core legal question was whether post-arrest bail was rightly granted by the Magistrate in a serious offence where the accused was a proclaimed offender and recoveries were effected. The Lahore High Court held that the bail-granting order was erroneous, noting that mere submission of challan is no ground for bail in offences punishable with death, life imprisonment, or ten years, and that proclaimed offenders evading arrest are not entitled to bail. The court laid down the principle that mechanical bail orders ignoring incriminating record, weapon recovery, and absconding status of an accused in heinous offences are unsustainable in law.
- Whether submission of challan alone is a sufficient ground for the grant of bail in cases punishable with death, imprisonment for life, or ten years?
- Can bail be granted to an accused who remained a fugitive from law and was declared a proclaimed offender?
- Does the absence of proper appreciation of record by a Magistrate warrant the cancellation of a post-arrest bail order?
- Section 161, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 87, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 88, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
KHAWAJA MUHAMMAD SHARIF, J.-Facts of the case are that complainant lives in Haveli Rustam Wali while his brother Master Muhammad Arshad was going to Master Shahab Din resident of Kalu Khara to know about his duty. His brother was going on bicycle to Kalu Khara when two young boys met him in the way, his brother asked them about the way leading to Kalu Khara. When his brother was returning back at about 12/1-00 noon, same two boys were sitting under a Kikar tree, both were having pistols. They both stopped Master Muhammad Arshad. He was having Rs.50/60.00. The accused asked him to leave his bicycle but he resisted, upon this one of them fired a shot which hit on his left thigh who became injured. Description of both the accused was given in the F.I.R. Injured Master Muhammad Arshad made a statement on 4-9-2005 attributing the fire-shot to the present respondent.
2. Respondent became fugitive from law, he was declared proclaimed offender and ultimately he was arrested on 27-6-2006 that's 10 months after the occurrence. He applied for bail after arrest before Mahmood Hayat Civil Judge with power of Section 30 Kasur who granted bail to-the respondent on 15-12-2006. His coaccused Muhammad Tariq filed Criminal Miscellaneous No.2589- B of 2007 before this Court which was not only dismissed by me but it also came to my notice that in fact it was the second bail petition of Muhammad Tariq co-accused. Earlier Criminal Miscellaneous No.4746-B of 2006 was dismissed by passing a detailed order on 26-6-2006 but his counsel Ch. Jahangir Hussain did not mention this fact. I was going to issue a notice to him but treating a young lawyer I did not think it proper to issue a notice. It also came to my notice, that respondent has been allowed bail by Mahmood Hayat Magistrate Section 30 Kasur, ing order was placed on record. I am sorry to note that while passing a routine order learned Magistrate had granted bail to the respondent. He has mentioned in his order that no recovery was effected from the respondent, which is totally wrong. Pistol was recovered from the respondent at the time of his arrest on 27-6-2006. The injured P.W. Master Muhammad Arshad, star witness in his statement under section 161, Cr.P.C. Has fully implicated the respondent. Learned Magistrate did not bother to go through the record to mention this fact. It is most important aspect of the Case that he even did not bother to see that when respondent was arrested and whether any proceedings under sections 87/88, Cr.P.C. Were initiated against the respondent. Respondent was also declared proclaimed offender. He was arrested 10 months after the occurrence. Such-like offences are at peak in the country. These type persons cannot be let loose in the society to repeat the offences. I have procured his presence after lot of efforts. Learned counsel for the respondent submits that respondent was allowed bail after arrest, challan has been submitted in the Court and no recovery has been effected from him. I may state here that mere submission of challan is no ground for grant of bail in a case punishable with death, life imprisonment or ten years. So bail-granting order passed by learned Magistrate Section 30 Kasur is withdrawn. He is already in custody. He shall be sent to judicial lock-up. Learned trial Court is directed to proceed further with the case and complete the trial as early as possible.
3. I would not restrain to comment upon the working of learned Magistrate who did not bother to go through'the record at the time of granting bail to the respondent. He bad granted bail to the respondent on flimsy grounds, which were not available on the record. This order shall be kept on his dossier. I also recommend to the Honourable Chief Justice that his powers for hearing criminal cases may be withdrawn! A copy of this order be sent to learned Sessions Judge, Kasur.
Bail cancelled.