Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: MUHAMMAD AZAM VS Respondent: StateHonorable Justice Hasnat Ahmad KhanSarfraz Khan Gondal
2008 Y L R 2412
2008 Y L R 2412
[Lahore]
Before Hasnat Ahmad Khan, J
MUHAMMAD AZAM---Petitioner
Versus
THE STATE---Respondent
Criminal Miscellaneous No.654-B of 2008, decided on 25th January, 2008.
Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)---
----S.498---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss.302/148/149---Pre-arrest bail, refusal of---Record revealed that accused was playing false and loose with the court ever since he was implicated in the case---Since the registration of the case against accused, he had been frustrating and deflecting the process of investigation which was surely against the object of law---Firstly his pre-arrest bail was dismissed due to his non-appearance as well as on merits, whereafter, he moved criminal miscellaneous before High Court, which was also dismissed due to his non appearance---While explaining cause of his non-appearance before the High Court, accused had submitted that he could not reach before the Court in time due to traffic problem---Said reason had neither been found plausible nor convincing---Even on merits, counsel for accused had failed to demonstrate that accused was entitled to extraordinary relief in the form of pre-arrest bail---Accused was specifically named in a murder case and plea of his involvement due to political rivalry, had not been substantiated through any document---Accused having failed to demonstrate that he was involved in the case out of malice of the police or the complainant, his bail application for grant of pre-arrest bail, was dismissed.
Murad Khan v. Fazal Subhan PLD 1983 SC 82; Zia ul Hassan v. The State PLD 1984 SC 192 and Masood Ahmad alias Muhammad Masood v. The State 2006 SCMR 933 ref.
Sarfraz Khan Gondal for Petitioner.
ORDER
HASNAT AHMAD KHAN, J.---Petitioner seeks pre-arrest bail in case F.I.R. No.249/2007 dated 17-9-2007 registered at Police Station Laksian, District, Sargodha, in respect of offence under sections 302/148/149, P.P.C.
2. Learned Counsel contends that the petitioner has malafidely been involved in this case by the police who are in cahoots with the complainant; that no specific role has been attributed to the petitioner in the F.I.R. and that the petitioner has been implicated in t` is case under the pressure of an Ex-Provincial Minister.
3. After hearing the learned counsel and going through the relevant record I have straightaway noticed that the petitioner failed to appear before learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bhalwal on 5-12-2007, which date was fixed for confirmation of ad interim pre-arrest bail granted to him. The order passed on the said date reveals that despite repeated calls neither the petitioner nor his learned Counsel turned up before the said Court, therefore, his petition was dismissed due to his non-appearance as well as on merits. Paragraph 3 of the instant petition depicts that after dismissal of his pre-arrest bail by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bhakkar, the petitioner moved a bail application Crl. Misc. No.491-B/2008 for the same relief before this Court but the same was dismissed on 22-1-2008, again due to non-appearance of the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner has failed to advance any plausible reason for non-appearance of the petitioner before the learned Additional Sessions Judge as well as this Court on the respective dates of hearing of his pre-arrest bail applications. Learned Counsel has tried to belie the order dated 5-12-2007 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bhalwal, by submitting that the petitioner did appear before the said Court, on the said date, in the early hours of the day but said fact was not recorded by the said Court. The said plea stands contradicted by the order, dated 5-12-2007 which shows that on said date neither the petitioner nor his Counsel appeared despite repeated calls. Presumption of correctness is attached to the judicial proceedings. Bald statement made by the learned Counsel for the petitioner cannot be preferred as against contents of the judicial proceedings. The record reveals that petitioner is playing fast and loose with the courts ever since he was implicated in this case which was registered way back on 17-9-2007, since then he has been frustrating and deflecting the process of investigation which is surely against the object of the law. Firstly, his pre-arrest bail was dismissed due to his non-appearance as well as on merits on 5-12-2007, whereafter, he moved Criminal Misc. No.491-B/2008 before this Court which was also dismissed due to his non-appearance. While explaining cause of his non-appearance before this Court on 22-1-2008, it has been submitted that he could not reach before this Court in time due to traffic problem. The said reason has neither been found plausible nor convincing. Even on merits learned Counsel for the petitioner has failed to demonstrate that he is entitled to extraordinary relief in the form of pre-arrest bail. He is specifically named in murder case, plea of his involvement due to political rivalry has not been substantiated through any document. As the petitioner has miserably failed to demonstrate that he was involved in this case out of malice of the police or the complainant, therefore, while relying upon the cases of Murad Khan v. Fazal Subhan PLD 1983 SC 82, Zia ul Hassan v. The State PLD 1984 SC 192 and Masood Ahmad alias Muhammad Masood v. The State 2006 SCMR 933, the application in hand is dismissed in limine.
4. The office is directed to immediately transmit the copy of this order to the Station House Officer of the concerned Police Station.
H.B.T./M-248/L Bail refused.