MUHAMMAD FIAZ BHOORA vs THE STATE AND ANOTHER
This petition for post-arrest bail arises from a criminal case registered under Sections 302/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 at Police Station Gujjar Pura, Lahore. The petitioner sought bail on the ground of further inquiry due to conflicting police investigation reports and cited various precedents. The respondents opposed the bail, highlighting the prompt lodging of the FIR, specific attribution of a firing role to the petitioner, corroborating ocular evidence, and the petitioner's history of multiple criminal cases. The Supreme Court held that the right to bail in a cognizable offence is not absolute and can be withheld if the accused has a criminal record or repeats offences. The court found that the FIR was promptly lodged, a specific role was attributed, and prosecution witnesses fully implicated the petitioner, thus no case for further inquiry was made out. The petition was accordingly dismissed, and the trial court was directed to proceed with the trial.
- Does conflicting police investigation reports automatically make a case one of further inquiry warranting post-arrest bail?
- Is the right of an accused to the concession of bail in a cognizable offence absolute?
- Does the pendency of an application under Section 265-C of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 amount to a stay of trial?
- 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, 403/13, dated 8.7.2013, under Sections 302/34, PPC, 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.FIR No, / dateUnder Section Police Station
1. 210/2010 13.5.20106/9 CNSA Gujjarpura, Lahore
2. 328/10 27.7.2003337, 337-F1, PPC 148/149 F1, PPCGujjarpura, Lahore
3. 707/2008 28.8.2008148/19, 324/506, PPC Gujjarpura, Lahore
4. 111/2005 3.3.2005302/34, PPC Gujjarpura, Lahore
5. 911/2011 17.8.20115/7/78, 279/186, PPC Gujjarpura, Lahore
6. 403/2013 8.7.2013302/34, PPC Gujjarpura, 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 nominally 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 A 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.
High Court Order Upheld.