Muhammad Fiaz @ Bhoora vs The State and another
The petitioner sought post-arrest bail in a murder case registered under Sections 302 and 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The petitioner argued that conflicting police investigation reports declaring him innocent and subsequently present at the crime scene brought the case within the scope of further inquiry, relying on various judicial precedents. The state and the complainant opposed the bail, highlighting the prompt lodging of the F.I.R., the specific role of firing attributed to the petitioner, ocular corroboration, and his criminal record involving multiple prior criminal cases. The Supreme Court held that the petitioner was assigned a specific role in a promptly lodged F.I.R., was fully implicated by witness statements under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, and possessed a criminal background showing abuse of the concession of bail, rendering precedents inapplicable due to varying facts. The petition was accordingly dismissed, with directions to the trial court to proceed expeditiously.
- Whether conflicting police investigation reports declaring an accused innocent in one instance and present at the crime scene in another automatically bring a case within the scope of further inquiry for the grant of bail?
- Can an accused with a history of multiple criminal cases claim bail as an absolute right?
- Does the mere pendency of an application under Section 265-C of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 operate as an automatic stay of the main trial?
- Are precedents in bail matters binding regardless of the varying facts and criminal antecedents of each case?
- Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 34, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 265-C, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 161, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
AMIR HANI MUSLIM, J. --- The Petitioner seeks post-arrest bail in case F.I.R. No. 403/2013, dated 8.7.2013, under Sections 302/34, P.P.C., registered at Police Station Gujjar Pura, Lahore.
2. It is contended by the learned Counsel for the Petitioner that the case against the Petitioner is of further inquiry as before the submission of the challan, investigation was conducted twice. In the first investigation report, the Petitioner was declared innocent whereas in the second report, he was found present at the place of the occurrence. He next contended that it is settled law that such-like cases fall within the term "further inquiry", therefore, the Petitioner is entitled to the concession of bail. He, in support of his contentions, has relied upon the cases reported as Manzoor v. The State (PLD 1972 SC 81), Nazir Ahmed v. The State (PLD 2014 SC 241), Muhammad Shakeel v. The State (PLD 2014 SC 458) and Syed Khalid Hussain Shah v. The State (2014 SCM R 12).
3. As against this, the learned counsel for the Complainant and the learned Additional Prosecutor General have opposed the grant of bail and contended that F.I.R. Was promptly lodged in which the Petitioner was assigned specific role of firing at the deceased. They further contended that ocular material corroborates the locale of injury on the person of the deceased.
4. The learned Law Officer further contended that the Petitioner is a habitual offender and is involved in 6 criminal cases registered against him at Police Station, Gujjarpura, Lahore. A list produced hereunder containing the number and nature of criminal cases registered against the Petitioner at Police Station Gujjar Pura, Lahore, has been produced in the Court by the learned Law Officer:--- Sr. No. F.I.R. No. Date Under Section Police Station
1. 210/2010 13.05.2010 6/9 CNSA Gujarpura, Lahore
2. 328/2010 27.07.2003 337, 337 FI PPC 147/149 FI PPCGujarpura, Lahore
3. 707/2008 28.08.2008 148/149, 324/506 PPCGujarpura, Lahore
4. 111/2005 03.03.2005 302/34, P.P.C. Gujarpura, Lahore
5. 911/2011 17.08.2011 5/7/78, 279/186 PPCGujarpura, Lahore
6. 403/2013 08.07.2013 302/34 PPC Gujarpura, Lahore The learned Law Officer further contended that the Petitioner was acquitted in some of the cases by way of compromise.
5. We have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and have perused the record. The F.I.R. Was lodged on 8.7.2013, whereas the Petitioner was arrested on 9.8.2014. The co-accused is still at large.
The charge was framed on 9.8.2014 whereafter the prosecution witnesses were appearing in the Trial Court, but on one pretext or the other, the case did not proceed. It appears that on 17.11.2014, an application under Section 265-C, Cr.P.C. Has been filed by the Petitioner, which is pending adjudication and main trial is not proceeding. Mere pendency of Application under Section 265-C, Cr.P.C. Does not amount to stay of trial. The Trial Court shall proceed with the trial irrespective of the pendency of the aforesaid Application, which may be decided on its own merits.
6. We would not like to comment upon the criminal cases registered against the Petitioner, list of which has been produced before us by the learned Law Officer pertaining to different years. As per learned Counsel for the Petitioner, the Petitioner was acquitted of the charge in these cases on the basis of compromise. We may observe that right of an accused to the concession of bail in a cognizable offence is not absolute. It is the discretion which a Court exercises by transferring the custody of an accused from Jail to the Court, which discretion is normally withheld if the accused abuses the concession by repeating the offence after the grant of bail. The criminal cases against the Petitioner prior to the case in hand, prima facie, attracts the aforesaid established norms.
7. The case-law cited by the learned Counsel for the Petitioner in support of his contentions, in the first place, is of no consequence where the Petitioner has a criminal record. Even otherwise, the precedents in bail matters are of no help to a party, as it varies from case to case depending upon the facts of each case. The. Court has to examine as to whether accused has made out a case of further inquiry or not.
8. In the instant case, we are of the considered view that the F.I.R. Against the petitioner was promptly lodged in which specific role of firing at the deceased was attributed to the Petitioner. The prosecution witnesses examined under Section 161, Cr.P.C. Fully implicate the Petitioner. No case of further inquiry has been made out.
9. This Petition is accordingly dismissed and . Needless to observe that the Trial Court shall proceed with the trial uninfluenced by the observations made hereinabove and decide the case on the material produced by the parties at trial. revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.