2019 PLP 1585 (MLD)
FARHAD ALAM — Petitioner Versus The STATE — Respondent
| Citation | 2019 PLP 1585 (MLD) |
| Forum / Court | Gilgit-Baltistan Chief Court |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | FARHAD ALAM — Petitioner Versus The STATE — Respondent |
| Primary Law | Criminal procedure code (V of 1898) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2019 PLP 1585 (MLD)?
This judgment primarily cites: Criminal procedure code (V of 1898) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2019 PLP 1585 (MLD)?
The case was heard and decided by the Gilgit-Baltistan Chief Court bench comprising: N/A.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2019 PLP 1585 (MLD) (FARHAD ALAM — Petitioner Versus The STATE — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Sher Alam and Abid Hussain for Petitioner.
- Dy. Advocate General for the State.
- 3. On the other hand the learned Dy. Advocate General submitted that challan of the case has been submitted in the Court and trial of the case has been commenced. The grant of bail to the petitioner at this stage will prejudice the case of prosecution. The learned Dy. Advocate General further contended that it is now consistent practice of superior Courts not to allow bail in a case which is fixed for evidence. The offence with which the petitioner/accused is charged entails punishment of life imprisonment/death, which falls within the prohibitory clauses of Section 497, Cr.P.C.
- 4. The petitioner/accused is not directly charged in the FIR. The complainant got recorded his supplementary statement in which he nominated four persons for commission of murder of his son, out of which two were found innocent during investigation and were released under section 169, Cr.P.C. The complainant as informed by the learned Dy. Advocate General has not filed any application to any higher authorities of police for setting aside the findings of Investigating Officer nor he opted any other recourse available to him under law for redressal of his grievances. The case of the petitioner is one of the further inquiry falling under section 497(2), Cr.P.C. When a case becomes as one of the further inquiry, the bail should be granted to an accused as a matter of right and not as a matter of grace. The contention of the learned Dy. Advocate General that trial of the case has commenced, which disentitles the petitioner for concession of bail is misconceived. When case of an accused/petitioner becomes as one of the further inquiry, he should be allowed bail even if the trial has commenced or if it is at the verge of completion. Practice cannot be given preference over the right. The Courts are custodian of the liberty of the people and it is bounden duty of the Court to exercise discretion in favour of those, whose cases are covered under section 497(2), Cr.P.C. as there is no concept of advance punishment in Criminal Justice System. The petitioner has been charged for abetment of the offence. The case of an abettor is always at lower pedestal as compared to the principal accused, who are charged for commission of the offence. All these factors when taken cumulatively has made out the case of the petitioner fit for grant of bail.
Headnotes / Summary
Ss. 497& 169
Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 302, 109/114& 34
Qatl-i-amd, abetment, common intention
Scope and effect
Complainant lodged FIR against some unknown persons and later nominated four persons in his supplementary statement in which abetment was alleged upon the petitioner
Petitioner/accused contended that out of four nominated persons, Police released two accused under S. 169, Cr.P.C, which showed that there was only guess work on the part of the complainant
Complainant contended that as trial had commenced, the petitioner was not entitled to the concession of bail
Complainant, admittedly, had not filed any application to any higher authorities of police for setting aside the findings of investigating officer nor he opted any other recourse available to him under the law for redressal of his grievances
Case of the petitioner was one of further inquiry and the bail was to be granted to the accused as a matter of right and not as a matter of grace
When case of an accused became as one of the further inquiry, he was entitled for bail even if the trial had commenced or if the same was at the verge of completion
Practice could not be given preference over the right
Courts were custodian of the liberty of the people and it was bounden duty of the Courts to exercise discretion in favour of those, whose cases were covered under S. 497(2), Cr.P.C as there was no concept of advance punishment in criminal justice system
Petitioner had been charged for abetment of offence and the case of an abettor was always at lower pedestal as compared to the principal accused, who were charged for commission of the offence
All such factors, when taken cumulatively, had made out the case of the petitioner fit for grant of bail
Bail was granted to the petitioner , in circumstances.
Judgment & Decree
MALIK HAQ NAWAZ, J.
The petitioner stands booked for the offences under sections 302/109/114/34, P.P.C. in an FIR No.16/2018 of Police Station Pari Bangla dated 19.05.2018.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is not a nominated accused in the FIR, which was lodged against some unknown persons and later on the complainant made a supplementary statement in which he implicated four (04) persons for commission of offence. The learned counsel submitted that out of four nominated persons police released two (02) accused under section 169, Cr.P.C., which means that there was a guess work on the part of complainant and even the subsequent story of the occurrence was not worthy of any credence. The accused has been charged under section 114, P.P.C., which requires further inquiry and the petitioner deserves the concession of bail as there is no worth reliance evidence to connect the petitioner with the commission of offence. The learned counsel relied on 1994 PCr.LJ 746, 1996 PCr.LJ 1171, 2004 PCr.LJ 17, 2018 YLR 208, 2015 GBLR 272, 2018 YLR 2000 and 2001 PCr.LJ 1707.
3. On the other hand the learned Dy. Advocate General submitted that challan of the case has been submitted in the Court and trial of the case has been commenced. The grant of bail to the petitioner at this stage will prejudice the case of prosecution. The learned Dy. Advocate General further contended that it is now consistent practice of superior Courts not to allow bail in a case which is fixed for evidence. The offence with which the petitioner/accused is charged entails punishment of life imprisonment/death, which falls within the prohibitory clauses of Section 497, Cr.P.C.
4. The petitioner/accused is not directly charged in the FIR. The complainant got recorded his supplementary statement in which he nominated four persons for commission of murder of his son, out of which two were found innocent during investigation and were released under section 169, Cr.P.C. The complainant as informed by the learned Dy. Advocate General has not filed any application to any higher authorities of police for setting aside the findings of Investigating Officer nor he opted any other recourse available to him under law for redressal of his grievances. The case of the petitioner is one of the further inquiry falling under section 497(2), Cr.P.C. When a case becomes as one of the further inquiry, the bail should be granted to an accused as a matter of right and not as a matter of grace. The contention of the learned Dy. Advocate General that trial of the case has commenced, which disentitles the petitioner for concession of bail is misconceived. When case of an accused/petitioner becomes as one of the further inquiry, he should be allowed bail even if the trial has commenced or if it is at the verge of completion. Practice cannot be given preference over the right. The Courts are custodian of the liberty of the people and it is bounden duty of the Court to exercise discretion in favour of those, whose cases are covered under section 497(2), Cr.P.C. as there is no concept of advance punishment in Criminal Justice System. The petitioner has been charged for abetment of the offence. The case of an abettor is always at lower pedestal as compared to the principal accused, who are charged for commission of the offence. All these factors when taken cumulatively has made out the case of the petitioner fit for grant of bail.
5. The petitioner is allowed bail subject to his furnishing bail bonds of Rs.10,00000/- (Ten lac) with local sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of trial Court.
6. Cr. Misc. bearing No.173/2018 is disposed of accordingly. File be consigned to record after completion. MQ/212/GB Bail granted.