1986 PLP 2158 (MLD)

Application was opposed by the counsel for the respondent. According to the counsel for the respondent the Judge being convinced that there was a prima facie case for bail exercised discretion in favour of the respondent. The discretion was exercised in accordance with the accepted principles of the administration of criminal justice dealing with bail matter in non‑bailable offence. The two counsel for the respondent submitted a list of authorities and also attached photostat copies of certain documents in support of their case as well as to support the order of the Additional Sessions Judge. In view of the order I am going to pass I do not think it is necessary to refer to the case, law cited by the counsel for the petitioner as well as that of the respondent. The following reasons weighed with the Judge in admitting the respondent to bail:

(a) "The record shows that the petitioner has produced evidence in support of his plea of alibi. (b) It is also admitted that he himself surrendered before the police authorities. (c). He is in judicial lock up since 17‑12‑1985. (d) No useful purpose will be served in, keeping him behind the bars any more. I have examined these reasons and considered the contentions of the counsel for the parties. The reasons mentioned above are flimsy. These cannot be taken as sound judicial reasons. The Judge merely mentioned the plea of alibi. He neither considered the evidence nor discussed nor even adverted to the evidence produced by the respondent in support of his plea of alibi. The mere fact that plea of alibi had been taken does not mean that it is to be accepted ipso facto. Such a plea has to be examined especially at bail stage. The Court is to give reasons whether the plea prima facie has any force or not. Otherwise the mere fact that an accused states that he was not present at the time of particular incident would amount to plea of alibi. Similarly in a murder case the mere fact that the accused surrendered himself or that he is behind‑the bars and that no useful purpose will be served in keeping him in the judicial lock up are not sound reasons to allow bail in a capital offence. No doubt the shot fired by the accused did not hit anybody and the fatal injury is attributed to some one else but this fact will have to be taken into consideration alongwith the rest of the relevant circumstances. The learned Additional Sessions Judge did not pay any attention to this aspect of the case. In the absence of the cogent reasons the order admitting the respondent to bail is not legally maintainable. It is an arbitrary order. Hence the bail of the respondent is cancelled. He shall be arrested and sent to prison forthwith. After arrest it will be open to the respondent to move afresh for bail, which application shall be heard by the learned Sessions Judge, Lahore, himself and disposed of in accordance with law without being prejudiced either by the order, dated 1‑2‑1986 or by any observation made by me in this order. S.A Bail cancelled.