P L D 2009 Lahore 638 (PLP)

KHAWAJA MUHAMMAD SHARIF, C.J.

At the time of issuing notice, I had also summoned the report from the learned trial Court, which is to the effect that charge was framed on 29-11-2008 and as per order sheet, the accused was not being produced from Jail on certain dates of hearing, on which, learned Magistrate issued show-cause notice in the name of Superintendent Jail concerned for non-production of the accused. In order to satisfy myself I had summoned the record of the learned trial Court, which has been produced. According to the record accused/petitioner was arrested on 23-11-2007 in case F.I.R. No.1502/07 registered under sections 399/491, P.P.C. in which four days remand was granted by the learned Magistrate and when he was again produced on 27-11-2007 mobile phone was recovered from him and a request for sending the accused to judicial lock-up was made, which was done and it was ordered by the learned Magistrate to produce the accused on 11-12-2007. The first interim order passed by the learned trial Court is dated 27-5-2008 and the second is 10-6-2008. On both dates of hearing, accused-petitioner was not produced from Jail, then he was produced on 24-6-2008 from Jail and matter was adjourned to 8-7-2008, copies as required under section 2.41-A, Cr.P.C. was handed over to accused-petitioner and matter was adjourned for framing of charge on 22-7-2008, then, he was not produced on 22-7-2008, 2-9-2008, 9-2-2008(sic), 23-2-2008(sic), 7-10-2008 and 21-10-2008 and on that date, show-cause notice was issued in the name of Superintendent Jail concerned and the accused was summoned for 4-11-2008, even on 4-11-2008 accused-petitioner was not produced because Ahlmad had not issued show-cause notice to Superintendent Jail concerned, on the said date, learned Magistrate warned the Ahlmad and directed him to issue show-cause notice, then on 18-11-2008 accused-petitioner was not produced, again show-cause notice was issued to Superintendent Jail and matter was adjourned, then on 29-11-2008 charge was framed, accused-petitioner denied the charge and did not plead guilty, summons of P.Ws were issued for 13-12-2008 and on the said date accused was not produced, then matter came up for hearing on 10-1-2009 accused was present, P.Ws. were summoned for 24-1-2009. On the said date, accused was not produced, matter was adjourned to 7-2-2009 and on 7-2-2009 Court was on leave, matter was adjourned to 10-2-2009, accused was not produced from Jail, then he was produced on 24-2-2009 but again P.Ws. were summoned for 9-3-2009. On 9-3-2009 accused was not produced from Jail and matter was adjourned to 23-3-2009 but on the said date it was Holiday so on 24-3-2009 accused was not produced from Jail due to the negligence of learned trial Court because he has adjourned the matter for 23-3-2009 when it was Holiday, then, the matter came up for hearing on 6-4-2009 but the accused was not produced from Jail and he was again summoned. On 20-4-2009 accused was present but the P.Ws. were not present and learned Magistrate ordered Public Prosecutor to produce the witnesses, matter was adjourned to 4-5-2009, even on 4-5-2009 accused was not produced from Jail. P.Ws. Tariq Mahmood and Muhammad Nawaz were in attendance but accused was not produced especially Robekar was ordered to be issued for 18-5-2009 and show-cause notice was also issued in the name of Superintendent Jail concerned.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that though the petitioner is named in the F.I.R. but no source has been mentioned in the FIR., which was lodged two days after the occurrence and that he is behind the bars for the last one year and six months.

3. On the other' hand, learned D.P.G. submits that petitioner is named in the F.I.R., that motorcycle, mobile phone and Rs.1000 were recovered from him, there are five other cases of similar nature against the petitioner and the offence alleged against him falls within the ambit of section 497(1), Cr.P.C.

4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. It is a case in which petitioner is named in the F.I.R., there was no reason on the part of the complainant to falsely implicate him, when he was taken into custody he led to the recovery of mobile phone belonging to the complainant and Rs.1000 and there is also a recovery memo. on record regarding pistol long with five bullets, then, he led to the recovery of motorcycle on 17-11-2007, which was also taken into possession. This is not a first case in which petitioner has been named as an accused but there are four other cases of similar nature against him. This type of accused person cannot let loose in the society to repeat the offence. Offence alleged against the petitioner falls within the ambit of section 497(1), Cr.P.C. No, ground for bail is made out; therefore, this petition is dismissed. Record of the trial Court is handed over to Muhammad Naeem, Ahlmad of the trial Court. Copy of this order shall be sent to learned trial Magistrate, who If would make it sure that the accused-petitioner should be produced from Jail on each and every date of hearing so his trial be completed within three months. It was observed by the Hon'ble Chief Justice of Pakistan while inspecting Central Jail Kot Lukhpat, Lahore and I was also accompanying him that Jail Authorities and Home Secretary Government of Punjab should make it sure that all the accused persons, who are confined in Jail and facing trial, should be produced regularly before the learned trial Court. A direction was also given to Inspector General of Police, Punjab, who was also available on the said date that he should make it sure that challan of all the accused should be submitted in the trial Court within two weeks as required under the law. Copy of this order shall also be communicated to Home Secretary, Government of Punjab to' get the needful done and also to follow the instructions given by Hon'ble Chief Justice of Pakistan. M.B.A./M-455/L Bail refused.