P L D 1984 Lahore 459 (PLP)

Shakeel Anjum son of Muhammad Ramzan, Kashmiri, resident of Chah Malbianwala, Gujranwala City, was challaned under section 307/452. Report was lodged by Muhammad Sharif with regard to an occurrence alleged to have taken place on 25‑9‑1933 at about 4 p.m. in the house of the complainant situate in Mohalla Islarnpura. The accused after his arrest applied for bail to the Ilaqa Magistrate Muhammad Arshad Virk. His application was dismissed on 17‑11‑19233 by the Magistrate who observed that the injuries caused by him were on the vital part of the body. Those had been inflicted by dagger. One of them was declared grievous. The victim at that time was in a precarious condition. The accused then moved the Sessions Judge, Additional Sessions Judge, Gujranwala, dealt with his bail application and dismissed the same on 11‑12‑1983. Thereafter, for the second time an application was moved by the accused before the same Magistrate for bail. Ground taken was that the accused's real sister was to be married on 6‑1‑1984 and he being elder brother was to make necessary arrangements. The proof produced in support of this was an invitation card. The same Magistrate bailed out the accused. The complainant then moved for cancellation of the bail, to the Magistrate. The application for cancellation was dismissed on 28‑3‑1984. While dismissing the application the Magistrate observed "I agree with the contentions advanced by the learned counsel for the accused and have no hestitation in holding that the complainant has failed to make out a case for cancellation of bail already granted to the accused". Thereafter, the complainant approached the learned Sessions Judge. The application was marked to the Additional Sessions Judge, Gujranwala who by order dated 16‑5‑1984 allowed the application and cancelled the bail. The accused was arrested and sent to jail. He has now come to this Court for bail. Notice was issued on 26‑5‑1984. On 17‑6‑1984 I ordered Muhammad Arshad Virk, Magistrate, Gujranwala who dealt with the bail petition of the petitioner to appear personally before me. Learned counsel for the petitioner pressed for bail on the ground that number of adjournments were granted to the prosecution to produce evidence. He drew my attention to the dates mentioned in this petition, and submitted that in spite of that prosecution failed to lead any evidence. Learned counsel submitted that the prosecution cannot be given an open cheque. Reasonable opportunity was granted but the prosecution did not avail of that. Hence the petitioner is entitled to bail. It was further submitted that the investigation is complete; challan has been submitted, therefore, it will be unfair to keep the petitioner behind the bars. With regard to the injuries, learned counsel submitted that only one injury was found to be grievous. I have also heard the learned counsel for the State. I am not inclined to consider anyone of these submissions. The most important point in this case is the conduct of the Magistrate and the way the petitioner manoeuvred his bail. Learned counsel did not address me on that. The reason being that he had no effective argument to advance. The bail having been refused once by the Additional Sessions Judge as well as by the Magistrate himself, then the Magistrate had no right to entertain the second application; that too on a flimsy ground of marriage of the petitioner's A sister. If at all the Magistrate was honest in his approach he should have, at the most, allowed interim bail. But I would like to emphasize that even this would have been improper on his part. The Magistrate was debarred for, all intents and purposes to entertain the second application for bail. I have gone through the order dated 28‑3‑1984 whereby the application) moved by the complainant for cancellation of bail was dismissed. The B Magistrate took special pains not only to justify his order of bail but also went out of the way to dismiss the application. This is highly illegal and, improper. It reflects upon the integrity of the Magistrate. A few cases have come to my notice where once the application for bail is dismissed by a Magistrate as well as by the Sessions Judge, the accused after waiting for some time again approaches the same Magistrate through back doors and manages his release on bail. This dealing must be stopped. The officer who is found indulging in such a practice would be in serious trouble. His entire judicial career is likely to be ruined by indulging in such malpractice. I wanted to proceed against the Magistrate under section 3 of the Contempt of Courts Act but he has been ordered to be transferred, immediately by the Hon'ble Chief Justice to Muzaffargarh. This should be eye‑opener for all. May be next time it would be more than mere transfer. I have, therefore, decided not to take any further action. A copy of this order shall be sent to the Registrar of this Court who shall bring it to the notice of the Reporting Officer of the Magistrate at the time of writing his A. C. R. M. Z. M. Order accordingly.