2012 PLP 1778 (YLR)
NADEEM HUSSAIN — Petitioner Versus THE STATE and another — Respondents
| Citation | 2012 PLP 1778 (YLR) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Ijaz Ahmad Chaudhry C.J. and Mazhar Iqbal Sidhu, J |
| Parties | NADEEM HUSSAIN — Petitioner Versus THE STATE and another — Respondents |
| Primary Law | (a) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), (c) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), (b) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2012 PLP 1778 (YLR)?
This judgment primarily cites: (a) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), (c) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), (b) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2012 PLP 1778 (YLR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Ijaz Ahmad Chaudhry C.J. and Mazhar Iqbal Sidhu, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2012 PLP 1778 (YLR) (NADEEM HUSSAIN — Petitioner Versus THE STATE and another — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Liaqat Ali Sindhu for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
S. 497(4)
Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss.302/109/147/148/149
Anti-Terrorism Act (XXVII of 1997), Ss.7/21(i)
Police Order (22 of 2002), Art.155(c)
Contents of F.I.R., of course, were not shock free, but courts had to decide the cases within the framework of law
Accused was not nominated in the F.I.R. and he had been implicated in the case by the complainant through his supplementary statement after five days of the incident
Police after thorough investigation had found the accused innocent and placed his name in column No.2 of the challan
Non-granting of bail after the commencement of the trial primarily related to practice of the court, whereas the law did not bar grant of bail
Right of a person in a bail matter was involved and where practice and right would go simultaneously, the right would prevail
Even under S.497(4), Cr.P.C. bail could be granted at any stage of the case
Accused was admitted to bail in circumstances. Muhammad Ismail v. Muhammad Rafique and another PLD 1989 SC 585 ref.
S. 497
Effect
Refusal of bail after commencement of trial primarily was a practice of courts, but the law did not prohibit grant of bail in such circumstances
Right of a person being involved in bail matter cannot be defeated simply on the score of practice
Right would prevail over practice. Muhammad Ismail v. Muhammad Rafique and another PLD 1989 SC 585 ref.
S. 497(4)
Bail can be granted to an accused at any stage of the case. Tariq Javaid, D.P.-G. for the State. M. Javaid Awan for the Complainant.
Judgment & Decree
Nadeem Hussain-petitioner after having been booked in the F.I.R. No.449 dated 20-8-2010 registered under sections 302, 109, 147, 148, 149, P.P.C. read with section 7/21(i) of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 and Article 155(c) Police Order, 2002, at Police Station Saddar Sialkot on the written application of Zarar Butt, seeks post-arrest bail,
2. Brief facts of the case are that Ali Peter and others committed the murder of Mughees Sajjad and Muneeb Sajjad dubbing them as muggers.
3. In support of bail application, learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that initially the petitioner was not named in the F.I.R., rather he was named in the supplementary statement after five days wherein complainant has not mentioned any source through which he came to know about the name of the petitioner. Adds that the address of the petitioner given by the complainant is false and the petitioner has been made scapegoat in this case. Learned counsel further submits that the case was thoroughly investigated and the police found the petitioner innocent and his name has been placed in Column No.2 of the challan implying non-recommendation of prosecution of the petitioner. Learned counsel further adds that the material available on the record as to the petitioner prima facie makes his case as that of further inquiry.
4. Learned D.P.-G., assisted by the learned counsel for the complainant, has opposed the bail. It has been argued that the trial of the petitioner along with his co-accused is at the verge of its completion and at this stage, it would not be desirable to go into the merits of the case deeply while deciding the bail application. Adds that it would be better to issue direction to the learned trial Court to conclude the trial within a short proximity of time. While concluding the arguments, it has been submitted that two young chaps who were absolutely innocent and had not yet entered in the realities of life have been done to death like animals.
5. Hearkened and record perused.
6. Of course, one feels shock after going through the contents of the F.I.R., but at the same time Courts are hedged to decide the cases within the framework of law. Petitioner was not nominated in the F.I.R., after five days the complainant made his supplementary statement involving the petitioner, case was thoroughly investigated and the petitioner has been found not involved and his name being innocent has been placed in Column No.2 of the report prepared under section 173, Cr.P.C.
7. No doubt Courts are constrained in deciding the bail applications when the trial has commenced but this issue has been settled in an authoritative judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan reported as Muhammad Ismail v. Muhammad Rafique and another (PLD 1989 585), wherein it has been held that non-granting of bail after the commencement of trial primarily relates to practice of the Court whereas the law does not make any bar on it. It has further been held that in the bail matter right of a person is involved and by virtue of law he claims it and where practice and rights go simultaneously the right would prevail. Phraseology of section 497, Cr.P.C. is very much clear on it that bail can be granted at any stage of the case. For its better understanding, subsection (4) of the ibid is jotted down infra:-- "
497. When bail may be taken in cases of non-bailable offence: (1) (2) (3) (4) If at any time after the conclusion. of the trial of a person accused of a non-bailable offence before judgment is delivered Court is of opinion that there are reason-able grounds for believing that the accused is not guilty of any such offence, it shall release the accused if he is in custody on the execution by him of a bond without sureties for his appearance to hear the judgment delivered. (5) ."
8. For what has been stated above, instant application is allowed and the petitioner is granted bail subject to his furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs.100,000 with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court. N.H.Q./N-52/L Bail allowed.