SAMEEN ASGHAR Versus State
ORDER
AFTAB AHMED GORAR, J.--- By this common order we intend to dispose of all captioned Crl. Bail Applications. All the applicants are present in court except applicant Ali Haidar in Crl. Bail Application No. 247 of 2010 who could not come to court due to non-availability of flight from Gilgit. In the interest of justice, the absence of applicant Ali Haidar is condoned.
2. Record reflects that instant bail applications are coming up for hearing since the year 2010 but the same are being adjourned for one or the other reasons. Today learned counsel for the applicants while reiterating the grounds mentioned in the memo of bail applications submitted that after obtaining the pre-arrest bail, the applicants are regularly attending the trial court as well as this court and not misused the concession of pre-arrest bail. Learned counsel for applicants submitted that cases of applicants are about to conclusion.
3. Learned Special Prosecutor NAB as well as Assistant Attorney General opposed the confirmation of interim pre-arrest bail granted to the applicants but could not controvert the submission of learned counsel for the applicants.
4. Admittedly, the cases of applicants are at the verge of conclusion; no complaint of misuse of concession of bail or tampering the record has been pointed out. The applicants are regularly appearing in the cases before this court as well as trial court, which fact is clear from the record. It is not out of context to mention here that the object of bail is to secure the appearance of the accused person at his trial by reasonable amount of bail. The object of bail is neither punitive nor preventive and therefore, deprivation of liberty must be considered a punishment, unless it may be required to ensure the presence of accused during trial. The punishment begins after conviction and not before it, as in criminal justice system every man is deemed to be innocent until duly found guilty. It needs not to re-emphasize that the purpose of putting the un-convicted persons in custody is nothing but to secure their attendance at the trial. Even otherwise, life and liberty of a citizen is very precious and guaranteed by Article 4 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, as has been observed by the Hon'able Supreme Court of Pakistan in the case reported in PLD 1989 SC 585.
5. There is no denial to the fact that the case of the applicants before the trial Court is at the verge of the conclusion. It further appears that these bail applications are pending since 2010 whereas, the trial is at very advanced stage and it is not the case of NAB Authorities that the applicants have misused the concession of bail, therefore it will not serve any useful purpose if the interim bail granted to the applicants is recalled and their bail applications are dismissed. Such view is also supported by the dicta laid down in the case reported as 2011 SCMR 1332 (Rehmatullah v. The State and another) wherein it is observed as under:
"3. Heard. The petitioner was granted bail on 21.11.2008, which was cancelled by the learned High Court on 19.3.2009, when according to the order itself the trial was at the verge of conclusion. Learned Additional Prosecutor General stated that now only one or two witnesses are yet to be recorded. The courts should not grant or cancel bail when the trial is in progress and proper course for the courts in such a situation would be to direct the learned trial court to conclude the trial of the case within a specified period. Reference may be made to Haji Mian Abdul Rafique v. Riaz ud Din and another (2008 SCMR 1206). We find that the impugned order was passed in violation of the law, therefore, we cannot subscribe to it. In view whereof, we are persuaded to allow this petition and direct the learned trial Court to conclude the trial of the case expeditiously."
6. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case and the dicta laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Rehmatullah (supra), the interim pre-arrest bail granted to applicants in captioned Crl. Bail Applications is confirmed on same terms and conditions. The trial court is directed to conclude the trial within a period of two months under compliance report through MIT-II of this Court. The instant criminal bail applications stand disposed of.
7. It appears that one of the accused namely Rasool Bux Phulpoto in Reference No. 20/2012 has filed Constitutional Petition No. D-1268 of 2014 which is tagged with the instant petitions and since the same have been disposed of the Constitutional Petition No. D-1268 of 2014 is detagged and office is directed to place the same before the Court for further proceedings.
MQ/S-63/Sindh Bail confirmed.