2017 PLP 1497 (YLR)

IBAD-UR-REHMAN LODHI, J.

Farooq Mehndi-petitioner seeks post arrest bail in case FIR No.303, dated 10.04.2016 offence under Section 302 read with Section 34, P.P.C. registered at Police Station Airport, District Rawalpindi.

2. Mst. Aziza Bibi-complainant, on appearance, seeks time to engage a counsel and then to instruct him to represent her in this matter. On probe, she has candidly admitted that she has already engaged a lawyer in order to represent her in the case and, in fact, said lawyer has instructed her to get an adjournment for his appearance on the next date of hearing.

3. This has become almost a routine in all criminal matters, particularly, the petitions for release of some under trial prisoner on post arrest bail that on one date of hearing the complainant appears in person and gets time to engage a counsel and on the next date of hearing a counsel appears with the submission that since he has recently been engaged, he be given some time for preparation of the matter. In such like manner a petition which has to be decided, at the most, by adjourning the same, for one or two occasions takes practically quite a number of adjournments for its conclusion. In cases registered through FIRs, it is, in fact, the responsibility of the State to prosecute the stance of the complainant side and in view of the provisions of Section 493 of Criminal Procedure Code, 1898, it is the Public Prosecutor, who is supposed to plead in all the Courts, for prosecution and even if a pleader is privately engaged to look after the interest of the complainant, he would only be competent to render assistance to the learned Public Prosecutor and nothing else. If the complainant of the case is interested in independent representation of his cause, he may avail such opportunity by filing a private complaint and in that event the privately engaged counsel would have every competence to represent the complainant independently.

4. Learned Deputy District Public Prosecutor for the State is present and he is not in need of any assistance to be provided by the learned counsel for the complainant, hence, the petition is directed to be argued by learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Deputy District Public Prosecutor for the State.

5. Although the presence of the present petitioner at the crime scene along with a pistol has been alleged in the First Information Report, but except his such presence no overt act has been attributed against him.

6. A co-accused of the petitioner, namely, Amir Altaf, who was attributed the role of raising a lalkara, was allowed bail by this Court on 30.08.2016 in Criminal Miscellaneous No.1527-B of 2016. Such release of Amir Altaf has never been challenged by the complainant side or the State. The alleged role of the present petitioner in the reported crime is less than that of Amir Altaf noted above and case of the petitioner, thus, for his release on post arrest bail is on better footing than that of the earlier released co-accused of the petitioner. The petitioner is behind the bars since 28.06.2016 and present detention, in such circumstances, would be nothing but a pre-trial punishment, which is not the intention of law.

7. Resultantly, this application is allowed and the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail subject to his furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs.5,00,000/- (rupees five lac only) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court. WA/F-5/L Bail granted.