BILAL GUL MUHAMMAD Versus State
ORDER
AFTAB AHMED GORAR, J.--- The applicant booked in Crime No. 23/2015 under sections 147/148/ 149/ 506/337-F(i)/ 337-(iv), P.P.C. registered with Police Station SITE Superhighway Industrial Area, Karachi was admitted to pre-arrest bail vide order dated 19.03.2021 and today the matter is fixed for confirmation of said order or otherwise.
2. Learned counsel for the applicant while reiterating the grounds mentioned in the memo of bail application submitted that after obtaining the pre-arrest bail, the applicant is regularly attending the trial court as well as this court and not misused the concession of pre-arrest bail. He argued that the name of applicant is not mentioned in the FIR and the complainant in his deposition has also said nothing about the present applicant. He further argued that applicant has not caused any injury to the complainant. He prayed that the pre-arrest bail earlier granted to the applicant may be confirmed.
3. Learned Additional Prosecutor General, Sindh has vehemently opposed the confirmation of pre-arrest bail to the applicant on the ground that applicant misused the concession of pre-arrest bail granted by the trial court as he remained fugitive from the law for a considerable time so also there is sufficient evidence available which connects the applicant with the crime, therefore the applicant is not entitled for concession of bail.
4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
5. This is a bail before arrest and applicant was admitted to pre-arrest bail vide order dated 19.03.2021 and today the matter is fixed for confirmation or otherwise. From the perusal of the contents of FIR it appears that no specific role about the incident is attributed directly to the applicant nor there is any mention of the weapon from which the accused allegedly caused injury neither there is any recovery of alleged weapon from the accused, no independent eye-witness has been shown in the FIR. It is, therefore, clearly a case of further inquiry. Moreover, the complainant has said nothing in his deposition against the present applicant. At bail stage, deeper appreciation of evidence and circumstances appearing in the case are not permitted and only tentative assessment is to be made, however, where accused satisfies the Court that there are reasonable grounds to believe that he is not guilty of such offence, then the Court must release him on bail. Wisdom is sought from the case titled Yar Muhammad v. The State and another reported in 2004 YLR 2230.
6. The main stress from the prosecution side was regarding the absconcion of the applicant but it is well-settled principle of law that bail can be granted if an accused has a good case for bail on merits and mere absconcioy would not come in the way while granting bail, hence this court is of the view that the learned trial Court has not appreciated the facts and circumstances of the case in its true perspective while declining bail to the applicant. In the reported case of Mitho Pitafi v. The State (2009 SCMR 299), the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under:
"According to FIR, neither any role has been attributed to the petitioner nor his presence has been shown at the time of occurrence. Vide order, dated 18.2.2002, co-accused namely Jam Patafi has been released on bail by the learned trial Court but the concession of bail was declined to the petitioner on the ground that he was fugitive from law. Learned High Court of Sindh as well as learned trial Court has rejected the bail of petitioner on account of absconsion and not on merit. It is well-settled principle of law that bail can be granted if an accused has good case for bail on merit and mere absconsion would not come in way while granting the bail. We are, prima facie, of the view that the learned High Court has not appreciated the facts and circumstances of the case in its true perspective while declining bail to the petitioner."
7. 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'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan in the case of Zaigham Ashraf v. The State (2016 SCMR 18), where it has made the following observation:-
"To curtail the liberty of a person is a serious step in law, therefore, the Judges shall apply judicial mind with deep thought for reaching at a fair and proper conclusion albeit tentatively however, this exercise shall not to be carried out in vacuum or in a flimsy and casual manner as that will defeat the ends of justice because if the accused charged, is ultimately acquitted at the trial then no reparation or compensation can be awarded to him for the long incarceration, as the provisions of Criminal Procedure Code and the scheme of law on the subject do not provide for such arrangements to repair the loss, caused to an accused person, detaining him in Jail without just cause and reasonable ground."
8. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, the interim pre-arrest bail granted to applicant vide order dated 19.03.2021 is confirmed on same terms and conditions. The instant criminal bail application stands disposed of.
9. However, it is clarified that observations made in this order are tentative in nature and will not affect the merits of the case, which shall be examined strictly in accordance with law and on the basis of evidence available on the record. It is further clarified that if the applicant misuses the concession of bail, the trial Court is at liberty to proceed against him in accordance with law.
SA/B-10/Sindh Bail granted.