AFZAL HUSSAIN and another vs THE STATE
The petitioners sought post-arrest bail in a criminal case registered under sections 302, 324, 148, and 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, read with section 7 of the Anti-Terrorism Act 1997, on the grounds of being declared innocent by successive investigating agencies and having no specific injuries attributed to them. The court considered the arguments and the conduct of the petitioners during trial proceedings. The court held that despite police opinions favoring innocence, the rebellious conduct of the petitioners—specifically refusing to sign the receipt of copies and refusing to sign the charge-sheet framed by the trial court—demonstrated a lack of respect for judicial proceedings and disentitled them to the concession of bail. Consequently, the bail petition was dismissed with a direction to the trial court to conclude the trial within two months.
- Does the refusal of an accused to sign the charge-sheet and court orders justify the refusal of post-arrest bail?
- Is the opinion of a police investigating officer finding an accused innocent binding upon the court during bail proceedings?
- What remedy is available to an accused if the trial is delayed by the complainant beyond the stipulated period?
- Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 324, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 148, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 149, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 7, Anti-Terrorism Act 1997
- Section 161, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
' The petitioners, have sought bail in case F.I.R. No,580, dated 11-6-2007 registered under sections 302/324/148/149, P.P.C. Read with section 7 of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 at Police Station Islampura, Lahore on the grounds that complainant made a supplementary statement before the Investigating Officer involving Aamir Tamba and 3 others responsible for the killing of his deceased father and injuring Iqbal Jatt P.W.; that the version in supplementary statement and that of F.I.R. Is running contradictory to each other; that both the petitioners were found innocent by three successive Investigating Agencies and the names of the petitioners have been placed in Column No,2 of the challan; that no specific injury has been attributed to the petitioners and that there is no chance of the absconsion of the petitioners from the jurisdiction of the Court.
2. On the other hand the learned D.P.-G. Assisted by learned counsel for the complainant argued that the petitioner have shared common intention with their co-accused and they are fully responsible for the commission of offence; that the finding of the Investigating Officer is not backed by reasons hence is not binding on the Court; that the case is fixed for prosecution evidence on 15- 1-2008 and that the conduct exhibited by the petitioners in refusing to sign the statements acknowledging the receipt of supply of copies and the charge before the learned trial Court does not deserve any indulgence to be shown.
3. Heard. Record perused.
4. The petitioners are nominated in the F.I.R. Along with Awais Cheema, Basit Cheema and Ayaz Sultan Cheema. Written supplementary statement was submitted to the Investigating Officer on the same day. Aamir alias Tamba along with three unknown persons were involved in the commission of offence in addition to nominated accused in the F.I.R. It was expressed in the application that Amir alias Tamba along with his three unknown co-accused were present hiding in a Charri crop and fired indiscriminately resulting into the death of his father and injuring Iqbal Jatt. Medico-legal certificate of Iqbal Jatt is not on the record however, there is reference of treatment notes of the injured. The petitioners have been found innocent in the investigations conducted by the officials.
' Though the opinion of Police Officer is not binding on the Court yet the same can be examined if it is backed by reasons.
5. We are not examining in detail the grounds urged before us as we are shocked by the conduct exhibited by the petitioners before the trial Court. They were supplied copies of statements under section 161, Cr.P.C. But when asked to sign the receipt of copies, they refused to do the same. This fact has been mentioned by the learned trial Court in the interim order, dated 4-12-2007. However, on 13-12-2007 they affixed their thumb-marks on the order-sheet acknowledging receipt of supply of copies under section 161, Cr.P.C. Charge was framed on 10-1-2008 but again they refused to sign the charge-sheet along with their co-accused. The learned trial Court has specifically referred this fact in the order-sheet against the statement of each of the accused. The petitioners appeared to be of desperate nature. They have no respect for the proceedings before the Court. We cannot approve of this conduct. The petitioners have refused on one occasion to sign acknowledgment to supply of copies, shown amends at a later stage but again refused to sign/thumb-mark the charge framed against them without any reason. We are, therefore, not inclined to grant the concession of bail to the petitioners, who have scant regard to the proceeding being conducted by the Court. Their rebellious conduct has left no sympathy.
6. The case is fixed for prosecution evidence. Learned counsel for the complainant have undertaken to produce all the witnesses before the Court by tomorrow. The learned trial Court shall endeavour to conclude the trial within a period of two months positively, if no fault is attributed to the petitioners. If the complainant fails to produce evidence and delays the conclusion of trial in the stipulated period, the petitioners have a right to agitate their bail again.
7. In view of above, this petition is dismissed.