2016 PLP 1 (YLRN)

S. 497

Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 302, 148, 149 & 109

Qatl-i-amd, rioting armed with deadly weapon, common object and abetment

Bail, refusal of

Ground of statutory delay

Scope

Earlier bail applications of accused had been dismissed on merits

Accused had concealed material aspect in the certificate given at the end of the petition

Accused had no case for grant of bail on merits and even on the ground of statutory delay as delay in the trial could not be attributed to the complainant or the prosecution

Accused could not be benefitted for non-compliance of direction for decision of the case within the stipulated period

Bail petition was dismissed in circumstances. [Paras. 7 and 9 of the judgment] Ghulam Habib, A.S.I. with Police Record. ORDER SAYYED MAZHAR ALI AKBAR NAQVI, J.

This is 4th post arrest bail petition on behalf of Gul Rehman/petitioner No.2 while 3rd bail petition on behalf of Qamar Din/petitioner No.l. Earlier Qamar Din petitioner had filed Crl. Misc. No.8956-B/2013, which was dismissed vide order dated 19.08.2013 while his second bail petition bearing Crl. Misc. No.14003-B/ 2014 was dismissed vide order dated 18.11.2014. As far as Gul Rehman/ petitioner No.2 is concerned, first bail petition bearing Crl. Misc. No.15601- B/2012 filed by him was withdrawn on 22.12.2012 while his 2nd similar petition bearing Crl. Misc. No.452-B/2013 was dismissed vide order dated 14.02.2013. Third petition filed by Gul Rehman/ petitioner No.2 bearing Crl. Misc. No.14003- B/2013 was also dismissed while touching upon merits of the case. It is also worth mentioning here that Gul Rehman/petitioner No.2 had also filed Crl. Petition No.209-L/2013 before august Supreme Court, which was withdrawn vide order dated 18.03.2013, however, this aspect is neither given in the note given at the end of the petition nor has been incorporated in the body of the petition.

2. Through this petition the petitioners seek their post-arrest bail in case FIR No.52/2012, dated 16.05.2012, offence under Sections 302, 148, 149, 109, P.P.C., registered with Police Station Chakrala, District Mianwali, at the instance of Jan Muhammad, complainant/respondent No.2.

3. Facts of the case already stand mention in detail in Crl. Misc. No.14003-B/2014, therefore, I am not inclined to burden this order by repeating the same here.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners while advancing his arguments submits that though earlier bail petitions filed by the petitioners were dismissed while touching upon merits of the case, however, the instant petition has been filed on the ground of statutory delay, as well as, non-compliance of direction for completion of trial within the stipulated period, issued by this Court by virtue of order dated 18.11.2014 passed in Crl. Misc. No.14003-B/2014. Further contends that the case was registered way back on 16.05.2012 and since then the petitioners are facing the agony of trial, however, Muhammad Ashraf co-accused has been arrested now and to his extent supplementary challan has been submitted meaning thereby that the trial shall commence afresh as such there is no likelihood of its conclusion in near future. It is next argued that by detaining the petitioners behind the bars for an indefinite period, would be against the canons of criminal justice, therefore, they are entitled to the relief of post-arrest bail.

5. Contrarily, learned Deputy Prosecutor General vehemently opposes this petition with the averments that the petitioners are duly in the crime report with their specific role of inflicting firearm injuries on the person of the deceased. Main crux of arguments of learned Law Officer is that earlier bail petitions filed by the petitioners were dismissed while touching upon merits of the case and even on ground of statutory delay, and as delay in trial is squarely attributable to the petitioners, therefore, they cannot seek any benefit on account of failure of the learned trial court for concluding the trial within the stipulated period. Finally prayer has been made for dismissal of the petition in hand.

6. Arguments advanced from both sides have been heard. I have also gone through the record available on file.

7. Perusal of record available on file reveals that Gul Rehman/petitioner has already approached this Court seeking relief of post-arrest bail thrice out of which his first bail petition was dismissed as withdrawn while rest two were dismissed while touching upon merits of the case. So much so third bail petition bearing Crl. Misc. No.14003 -B/2014 which was dismissed vide order dated 18.11.2014 was filed on the ground of statutory delay. However, by concealing this material aspect, in the certificate given at the end of the bail petition, it is mentioned that this is 3rd bail petition filed on behalf of the petitioners. Another important aspect of the case is that Gul Rehman/petitioner No.2 had also filed Crl. Petition No.209-L/ 12013, before august Supreme Court of Pakistan, which was dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 18.03.2013, however, this aspect has not been incorporated in the body of the petition, which speaks volumes about the conduct of the petitioners/their learned counsel. This Court, while dismissing earlier two petitions of each of the petitioners, has already held that on merits no case for grant of post-arrest bail is made out and even the petitioners were not held entitled to the relief on ground of statutory delay. The only aspect of the case to be adjudged at this stage is whether the petitioners are entitled to the relief sought for on account of failure of the learned trial court for non-compliance of direction issued for disposal of the trial within three months. Admittedly while disposing of Crl. Misc. No.14003 B/2014 vide order dated 18.11.2014, this Court had directed the learned trial court to decide the case within three months of the receipt of order, however, the same has not been concluded so far. In this regard report was requisition from the learned trial court, which has been received vide endorsement No.283, dated 18.06.2015. According to the report the delay in trial, in no way, can be attributed to the complainant or the prosecution, therefore, in view of reasoning given in the report submitted by the learned trial court, the petitioners cannot be benefited out of non-compliance of direction for decision of the case within the stipulated period.

8. As far as contention of learned counsel for the petitioners that Muhammad Ashraf, co-accused, has been arrested now and even fresh charge has not been framed so far, hence there is no likelihood of early disposal of the case is concerned, this Court has observed that it has become almost customary that the habitual offenders, after committing the occurrence, manage that one accused slips away and he joins the process of law after elapse of sufficient period in order to benefit the other co-accused to take advantage of the statutory delay in trial. Hence, to defeat such like tricks played by the accused, it would be in the interest of justice to curb it with iron hands. Therefore, the contention advanced by learned counsel for the petitioners on this ground is also repelled.

9. For the foregoing reasons, this Court has not been persuaded to extend the relief of post-arrest bail in favour of the petitions sought through the instant petition, which being devoid of legal jsutification hereby stands dismissed. ZC/Q-6/L Bail refused.