2012 SCMR 138

MUHAMMAD ASLAM Versus NAZAR KHAN

Citation2012 SCMR 138

CourtSupreme Court of Pakistan

Judge(s)Tassaduq Hussain Jillani and Muhammad Sair Ali

ORDER

TASSADUQ HUSSAIN JILLANI, J.-- -Petitioner/complainant seeks cancellation of bail granted to the respondent No. 1 in the case registered vide F.I.R. No. 238 dated 9-4-2005 under sections 302, 324, 337F(i) and 337A(i), P.P.C. read with section 34, P.P.C. at Police Station City Raiwind, Lahore. Bail has been allowed by the learned High Court vide the impugned judgment inter cilia on the ground that the only role attributed to the respondent was having raised a 'lalkara' and that despite a lapse of more than six years, the trial has not concluded.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondent's earlier bail application had been dismissed on merits vide the order dated 8-2-2007 and he could not have given a fresh petition on merits and the only ground which the court ought to have considered, was the statutory period. He added that the learned Court also did not appreciate that the case before the trial Court was at final stages; that almost the entire prosecution evidence had been recorded and it was not a proper stage to allow bail to the respondent. In support of the submissions made, learned counsel relied on Rehmatullah v. State (2011 SCMR 1332), Muhammad Sadik v. State (1980 SCMR 203), Shahadat Ali v. Mubarik Shah (PLD 1986 SC 347) and Muhammad Siddique v. State (PLD 1994 SC 93).

3. Learned Additional Prosecutor-General supported the petition, as according to him, the trial was almost at the verge of conclusion and the learned High Court could not have allowed bail to the respondent.

4. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Law Officer at some length, we find that admittedly the only role attributed to the respondent was that of raising 'lalkara'. The delay of more than six years in conclusion of trial was a tenable ground which prevailed with the learned High Court. So far as the argument of learned counsel that since the trial was at final stages, the court ought not to have released the respondent at bail is concerned, the principle which underpins this argument is the rule of propriety rather than a legal bar. Each case has its own distinct facts particularly in cases of bail. The discretion exercised by learned High Court in granting bail to the respondent have not been found by us, for afore-referred reasons, to be arbitrary or against the law declared. That being so, we do not find any merit in this petition, which is accordingly dismissed and leave refused.

M.H./M-82/SC Petition dismissed.