PLJ 2026 Cr.C. 92
[Lahore High Court, Lahore]
Present: Muhammad
Amjad Rafiq, J.
SUNNY HAKIM--Appellant
versus
STATE etc.--Respondents
Crl. Misc. No. 33508-B of 2025, decided on 10.7.2025.
Criminal Procedure Code, 1898 (V
of 1898)--
----S. 497--Pakistan Penal
Code, 1860 (XLV of 1860), Ss. 394/411--Bail--Statutory ground of delay--Case
analysis collects only one vital fact in issue in this case i.e.,
identification of accused/petitioner, which could
not have properly been attended or
addressed by prosecution--Facts highlighted by learned counsel for petitioner,
verified by learned Deputy Prosecutor General could not fill pitfall created
due to disassociation of injured in identification process and there is no
support to prosecution version that actually it was petitioner who fired at
injured--Rags of evidence are being made sticky to flower barren case; such
synthetic flow at this stage of proceedings hardly had any effect to cut relief
of petitioner for bail--Mere recovery of some amount and motorcycle from
petitioner, or criminal history cannot be considered valid material to decline
him concession of bail even on statutory ground of delay in conclusion of trial
until offender is convicted in such cases. [P.
104] A
PLD 1990 SC 934.
Criminal Procedure Code, 1898 (V of 1898)--
----S. 497--Burden of proof on prosecution--Bail after
arrest--Supreme Court of Pakistan has held that burden of proof on prosecution
i.e., “proof beyond reasonable doubt” also applies at all stages including
pre-trial stage, and even at time of deciding whether accused is entitled to
bail or not--Prosecution so far has not discharged such burden successfully. [P.
105] B
2024 SCMR 476.
Criminal Procedure Code, 1898 (V of 1898)--
----S.
497(2)--Pakistan Penal Code, 1860 (XLV of 1860), Ss. 394/411--Bail, grant
of--Further inquiry--Delay in trial--Statutory ground--Prosecution was responsible for causing delay in conclusion of
trial--Petitioner is behind bars since 18.07.2023 who had already completed his
statutory period of one year; therefore, has made out a case for bail not only
on merits but on statutory ground of delay in conclusion of trial as
well--There is no likelihood of conclusion of petitioner’s
trial in near future and relief on basis of such right so accrued in his favour
cannot be refused to him unless he is found to be hardened, desperate or
dangerous criminal, a previous convict for an offence punishable with death or
imprisonment for life or accused of an act of terrorism punishable with death
or imprisonment for life, but no such exception was found in case of present
petitioner. [P. 105] C
2022 SCMR 1 & PLD 2022 SC 112.
Ch.
Iftikhar Ahmad, Advocate for Petitioner.
Ms.
Noshe Malik, Deputy Prosecutor General for State.
Complainant
in Person.
Date of
hearing: 10.7.2025.
Order
Through
this petition under Section 497, Cr.P.C., petitioner seeks post arrest bail in
case FIR Bearing No. 1684 dated 26.06.2023 registered under Sections
394/411-PPC at Police Station Ravi Road, Lahore.
2. Earlier on the day when the police file
was placed before learned Deputy Prosecutor General, she was attempting to
collect the facts haphazardly to respond to the queries of this Court due to
which much precious time of this Court went into waste. She responded that the
record of the case has just been tabled before her in the Court, which irked
the Court to call for Prosecutor General, Punjab to appear and respond as to
why direction of Supreme Court of Pakistan in a case reported as “Javid Khan
versus Arshad Khan and another” (PLD 2024 Supreme Court 73) is not being
complied with. On his appearance, he was apprised of the facts that in above
judgment, Supreme Court of Pakistan has categorically observed that:
“A practice has also developed whereby despite
prior notice to the State preparation of the case is done before the Court,
rendering this Court into an office of the prosecution. Rather than attending
to the matter with the seriousness that it deserves two police officers, who
are investigating the crime travelled from Peshawar to bring documents which
could have been e-mailed, faxed or sent by WhatsApp, and then the relevant
documents could have been filed, which would have been useful in determining
the outcome of this bail application”
The learned Prosecutor General, Punjab was further apprised that as
per preamble of the Punjab Criminal Prosecution Service (Constitution,
Functions and Powers) Act, 2006, (the “CPS Act”) an independent, effective and
efficient service for prosecution of criminal cases, to ensure prosecutorial
independence, for better coordination in the criminal justice system of the
province and matters incidental thereto, was established and being maintained
by the Government under the said Act[1]
which consists upon Prosecutor General, Additional Prosecutor General, Deputy
Prosecutor General, District Public Prosecutor, Deputy District Public
Prosecutor and Assistant District Public Prosecutor,[2] and
none else, which is headed by the Prosecutor General and its administration
vest in him[3]
with no intervention whatsoever from any other corner except a liaison with
Attorney General of Pakistan and the Advocate General of Punjab, only in cases
which are pending in the Courts as a common cause.[4]
Thus, the CPS Act being a complete statute gives the Prosecutor General powers
to issue guidelines under its Section 10(1) to prosecutors and officers
responsible for investigation for effective and efficient prosecution. Of
course, such guidelines must be in accordance with the particular policy of
government if framed for prosecution of certain offences because government
exercises superintendence over the criminal prosecution service but in
prosecutorial decision making, criminal prosecution service is wholly
independent for the reason that the prosecutors are not the civil servants
rather being members of service, having an indemnity to their acts done in good
faith, are cloaked as public servants (see Ss. 16 & 18 of the CPS Act), so
that for any derelictions in their prosecutorial work they could be held
responsible.
3. Section 16 of the
CPS Act enunciates that subject to the provisions of this Act and rules,
members of the Service, including the staff, shall be appointed and governed
under the Punjab Civil Servants Act, 1974 and rules made thereunder. Thus,
applicability is conditional to the provisions of CPS Act which outline a clear
criterion for appointment of Prosecutor General on contract as per Section-6
and of all other prosecutors under section 8 either by initial recruitment
through Punjab public service commission or by promotion or by transfer as
prescribed, and prescribed means as per CPS Act, prescribed by rules which has
not been made so far. Section 20 of the CPS Act also gives an overriding effect
to Sections 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 17, 18 and 19 of the CPS Act on all
other laws; it therefore, gives air to a connotation that Punjab Civil Servants
Act, 1974 was not made applicable upon the members of service to give them a
status of civil servants rather its applicability is for multifarious purposes like
pay, pension, leave, and other fringe benefits which are applied in case of
every person working with the affairs of the province. Thus, until the rules
are framed under the CPS Act, the application of the Punjab Civil Servants Act
and rules made thereunder would remain operative for the cited purposes. It is
trite that if any person is directed to be governed by the Punjab Civil
Servants Act, 1974, it does not ipso facto make him civil servant if his
service is also regulated under any special statute or rules. One of the
instances in this respect could be of District Judiciary which is also governed
under the Punjab Civil Servants Act, 1974 for the purpose of pay, leave &
pension etc., subject to the Punjab Judicial Service Rules 1994, but still they
are not regarded as civil servants. Last but not the least Punjab Bar Council
does not suspend the practicing license of an advocate who joins the criminal
prosecution service or is appointed as law officer in office of Advocate
General Punjab or Attorney General of Pakistan so as to permit them to appear
before the High Courts or the Supreme Court on behalf of government as a legal
counsel. This command of law is incorporated in Section 11 of the CPS Act as
well, which is as under:
Conduct of
prosecution before Superior Courts.--(1) Without prejudice to the powers
conferred under any law on the office of the Attorney General of Pakistan and
the Advocate General, the Prosecutor General and the Additional Prosecutor
General may depute any Prosecutor, otherwise qualified, for
conducting prosecution before the Supreme Court, the High Court or the Federal
Shariat Court.
Above section shows that besides being
prosecutor he must be “otherwise qualified” which connotes to hold a
valid practicing licence for his eligibility to appear before the Superior
Courts. This aspect was also attended by the Supreme Court of Pakistan while
granting permissions to the prosecutors to contest for the post of Additional
Sessions Judge being eligible candidates. Reliance in this respect is placed on
case reported as “Riaz Hanif Rahi and others versus Registrar, Lahore High
Court, Lahore and others” (PLD 2008 Supreme Court 587). Nonetheless the
Supreme Court of Pakistan has already authoritatively held in a case reported
as “Province Of Sindh through Chief Secretary, Sindh, Sindh Secretariat and
another versus Prosecutor-General Sindh, Criminal Prosecution Department and
others” (2012 SCMR 307) that prosecutors are not the civil servants rather
public servants so as to take prosecutorial decisions independently free from
government pressures for which a need for establishment of independent criminal
prosecution service was felt, otherwise prosecution affairs were being
regulated by the Government of the Punjab, Law & Parliamentary Affairs
Department through the operation of Law Department Manual 1938, a Manual still
applicable on the office of Advocate General Punjab.
4. The Code of
Conduct for Prosecutors issued in year 2016 by the Prosecutor General Punjab
under Section 17 of the CPS Act also ensures independence of prosecutors
through following paragraphs:
3.4 Prosecutors must perform their duties in an open and fair
manner and not let their personal views regarding race, ethnicity, religion,
sect, gender, age, national origin, political affiliation, social status and/or
education influence their decisions. Similarly, Prosecutors must not be
affected by improper or undue pressure from any source.
4.13 A prosecutor cannot be directed to take a decision with a
pre-determined outcome
The above directions of Prosecutor General clearly demand that
prosecutors shall work fearlessly by taking independent decisions or giving
opinions for prosecution of criminal cases, better coordination in criminal
justice system of the province and matters ancillary thereto; therefore, they
cannot be directed by any authority to take a pre-determined outcome. Thus, a
prosecutor who does not apply his independent mind while taking prosecutorial
decisions or giving opinions exposes himself to a legal action by the
Prosecutor General under Section 10 (2) of the CPS Act which again regards the
prosecutors as public servants. The Section is reproduced;
(2) The
Prosecutor General or the District Public Prosecutor may, refer to the
authority, competent to initiate disciplinary proceedings under any law for the
time being in force, to take disciplinary action against any public servant
working in connection with investigation or prosecution, for any act
committed by him and is prejudicial to the prosecution.
(Emphasis supplied)
The above subsection reinforces the independence of criminal
prosecution service that until the Prosecutor General recommends, no authority
in government can take action against the prosecutors.
5. The learned Prosecutor General was
ultimately asked when the criminal prosecution service is independent in all
respect what restricts him to issue guidelines under Section 10(1) of the CPS
Act to the prosecutors and the investigators to follow command & dictates
of Hon’ble Supreme Court of Pakistan;
he responded that he is already working on such issue and in this respect
certain guidelines are also in place. He submitted report which shows that
Guidelines issued on 29.04.2025 through letter No. S-PRSQN/PGP/Circulation/ 2024-288-3676
were to the following effects:
i. Investigation officer should attend and
produce record of the case during criminal proceedings i.e. bails etc. before
Hon’ble High Courts.
ii. Previous history and record of conviction
of the accused should be taken from the concerned quarters i.e. CRO branch or
PSRMS during the course of investigation and the same be placed on record to
assist the Prosecutors during bail and other criminal proceedings before Hon’ble High Court and also attach previous record with reports
under Section 173, Cr.P.C.
iii. Investigation officers are under statutory
duty to prepare brief of the case in accordance with the Rule 27.4, Police Rule
1934 for the assistance of Public Prosecutors before the Hon’ble High Courts which include
previous record of conviction alongwith proof of previous conviction.
Above guidelines were addressed to
Inspector General of Police, Punjab, Lahore for compliance. Later by virtue of
letter No. S-PRSQN/ PGP/ Misc /7-9 /2025 /6658-A, dated 04.07.2025, Inspector
General of Police, Punjab, Lahore was apprised by the Prosecutor General that
guidelines issued on 29.04.2025 are not being complied with in letter &
spirit.
6. It has been
observed that specific directions with respect to use of WhatsApp for obtaining
relevant record from the police department has not been issued by the
Prosecutor General, Punjab through said guidelines, therefore, the Prosecutor
General, Punjab later on the day submitted a letter No. JCM/ PGP/ 65/ 2025
dated 10.07.2025 through Dr. Usman Deputy Prosecutor General Punjab containing
a direction to the Inspector General of Police, Punjab, Lahore that all the
DPOs may be directed to submit detailed fact sheet/ progress report to
concerned prosecutor at least one day prior to hearing of case via WhatsApp
or any other approved electronic communication platform. It is expected
that the Inspector General of Police, Punjab, Lahore shall pass direction to
all concerned that a day prior to the fixation of case, facts and relevant
developments in investigation through a fact sheet shall be communicated to the
concerned Prosecutor and police officer shall also have liaison with the
Prosecutor to respond to any query in this respect. The Prosecutor General is
directed to issue administrative direction to the concerned staff of his office
that while communicating the date of case to the police they shall obtain the
WhatsApp numbers of police officers/officials who are expected to produce the
record in the Court, and such numbers shall be shared with the concerned
prosecutors, who are directed to keep a close liaison with said police officers
for furnishing fact sheet or any required response to the queries raised by
them while reading the case files. Like direction be also issued by the
Prosecutor General to the concerned prosecutors, so as to make the mechanism
effective and a ground for disciplinary action in case of any dereliction.
7. Under Section
10(3)(c) of the CPS Act, Prosecutor is authorized to call for record or any
other document within a specified time from a law enforcement agency and if
necessary, from any other Government department or agency as may be necessary
for the purposes of prosecution. Thus, combined reading of above subsection and
Rule 27.4 of Police Rules 1934 relating to police brief gives authority to
prosecutors to call for brief fact sheet of the cases prior in time. Practice
of obtaining fact sheet, prior in time, will help the prosecutors to prepare
their cases well before the fixation date, and on the day when the case is
taken up, they could simply verify such facts from the original record of
police so as to save precious time of the Court and also to put an effective
say in favour of either of the parties because their legal mandate requires
that they shall perform their functions and exercise their powers fairly,
honestly with due diligence and in the public interest and to uphold justice
as mentioned in Section 13(9)(a) of the CPS Act. The word ‘shall’ used in above subsection makes
it mandatory for them to act accordingly. Any violation thereof can hold
them responsible for disciplinary action under Section 10(2) of the CPS Act.
8. The mandate of
above subsection requires the prosecutors to exercise their powers in public
interest, and this vague term attracted the attention of this Court to be
focused for a clarity what it actually is; therefore, a brief attempt is being
made to dig out the requirement of public interest though through a cumbersome
exercise of reading a plenty of material which was mainly extracted from; i)
The fact sheet developed by the NSW Ombudsman (Integrity Commission Tasmania),
2) An article on “The Public Interest We Know It’s Important, But Do We
Know What It Means” by Chris Wheeler. 3) Article published by The Johns
Hopkins University Press “The Public Interest: Its Meaning In Democracy”
by Anthony Downs.
9. The public
interest has been described as referring to considerations affecting the good
order and functioning of the community and government affairs for the wellbeing
of citizens. It has also been described as the benefit of society, the public
or the community as a whole. The public interest would consist of those
government actions that most benefited the whole society. It is important to
draw a distinction between the question and its application – between what is
the public interest, and what is in the public interest in any particular
circumstance. Although the term is a central concept to a democratic system of
government, it has never been definitively defined either in academics,
legislation or by the Courts. While there has been no clear interpretation,
there has been general agreement in most societies that the concept is valid
and embodies a fundamental principle that should guide and inform the actions
of public officials.
THE JOHNS HOPKINS University Press published an article “THE
PUBLIC INTEREST: ITS MEANING IN DEMOCRACY” written by ANTHONY DOWNS which shows
that there is no exact definition of “public interest”, acceptable to all. Writer deliberates the
term “public interest” in following expression:
The term public interest is constantly used
by politicians, lobbyists, political theorists, and voters, but any detailed
inquiry about its exact meaning plunges the inquirer into a welter of
platitudes, generalities, and philosophic arguments. It soon becomes apparent
that no general agreement exists about whether the term has any meaning at all,
or, if it has, what the meaning is, which specifications are in the public
interest and which are not, and how to distinguish between them. In the face of
this confusion why the term so often used? The answer can be found by
distinguishing between the meaning of a concept and its functions. Many a
significant concept is extremely hard to define in such a way that a large
number of its users would agree on the definition. One reason it is so hard to
define terms like love, justice and power is that they refer to realities so
fundamental and all pervasive in our lives that we cannot encompass them in few
words Yet everyone who uses such a concept has a notion of what it means, and
employs that notion to order the events he encounters and to communicate his
thoughts to others. The concept of public interest falls in this category.
Nevertheless, it serves important functions in social life.”
10. The
terms ‘public interest’ somehow was attempted to be defined
by the Academics, Legislatures and the Courts. In its 1979 report on the then
draft Commonwealth Freedom of Information Bill, the Australian Senate Committee
on Constitutional and Legal Affairs described the public interest as,
“…a convenient and useful concept for
aggregating any number of interests that may bear upon a disputed question that
is of general – as opposed to merely private – concern”.
The Committee also
said that the: …
“public interest “is a phase that does not need
to be, indeed could not usefully, be defined... . Yet it is a useful concept
because it provides a balancing test by which any number of relevant interests
may be weighed one against another. …the relevant public interest factors may
vary from case to case – or in the oft quoted dictum of Lord Hail sham of
Marylebon “the categories of the public interest are not closed”.
The meaning of the
term has been looked at by the Australian Courts in various contexts. In one
case the Supreme Court of Victoria said:
The public interest is a term embracing
matters, among others, of standards of human conduct and of the functioning of
government and government instrumentalities tacitly accepted and acknowledged
to be for the good order of society and for the wellbeing of its members. The
interest is therefore the interest of the public as distinct from the interest
of an individual or individuals…
In another case the
Federal Court of Australia said:
9. The
expression ‘in the public interest’
directs
attention to that conclusion or determination which best serves the advancement
of the interest or welfare of the public, society or the nation and its
content will depend on each particular set of circumstances…
10. The
expression ‘the public interest’
is often used
in the sense of a consideration to be balanced against private interests or in
contradistinction to the notion of individual interest. It is sometimes
used as a sole criterion that is required to be taken into account as the basis
for making a determination. In other instances, it appears in the form of a
list of considerations to be taken into account as factors for evaluation when
making a determination...
11. The
indeterminate nature of the concept of ‘the public interest’ means that the relevant aspects or
facts of the public interest must be sought by reference to the
instrument that prescribes the public interest as a criterion for making a
determination…
The dilemma faced
by those trying to define the public interest was summed up in another case in
the following few words:
The public interest is a concept of wide
meaning and not readily limited by precise boundaries. Opinions have differed,
do differ and doubtless always will differ as to what is or is not in the
public interest.
The term was
referred to in the following more colourful, but pragmatic, terms by an
American commentator:
Plainly the ‘public interest’ phrase is one of those
atmospheric commands whose content is as rich and variable as the legal
imagination can make it according to the circumstances that present
themselves to the policy maker (under the supervision of the Courts of course).
It could have been
this term that Lewis Carol was thinking of when he had Humpty Dumpty say:
“When I use a word…it means just what I
choose it to mean – neither more nor less.”
11. Most
attempts were made to describe what is meant by the ‘public interest’, however,
the issue of what constitutes the ‘public’
in ‘public interest’
has largely been
unexplored. Public interest though was considered as relates to the
interests of members of the community as a whole, or at least to a substantial
segment of them - that it should be distinguished from individual, sectional or
regional interests, yet at the other end of the spectrum, it is also widely
accepted that the ‘public interest’
can extend to
certain private ‘rights’ of individuals - rights that in many societies
are regarded as being so important or fundamental that their protection is seen
as being in the public interest, for example privacy, procedural fairness and
the right to silence. Thus, the public interest must also be able to apply to
the interests of groups, classes or sections of a population between those two
ends of the spectrum.
12. Acting
in the public interest is a fundamental concept in a representative democratic
system of government or in good public administration. However, this concept,
in practice, is somewhat complex, and presents two major obstacles to
governments and their public officials acting in the public interest:
• firstly,
while it is one of the most used terms in the lexicon of public administration,
it is arguably the least defined and least understood – few public officials
would have any clear idea what the term actually means and what its
ramifications are in practice.
• secondly,
identifying or determining the appropriate public interest in any particular
case is often no easy task - as Lyndon B Johnson once said: ‘Doing what’s right is n’t the problem. It’s knowing what’s right’.
Thus, public
officials must determine the public interest as it applies to them by referring
to the purposes for which their organization was established and the functions
they and their organization are required to perform. They should consider:
1. any
enabling legislation setting out objectives, purposes or functions of the
organization
2. relevant
government policy
3. their
organization’s corporate plan or other
relevant internal policy statements, and
4. the duty
statement for their position.
We know acting in the public interest
has two separate components:
• objectives
and outcomes - that the objectives and outcomes of the
decision-making process are in the public interest, and
• process
and procedure - that the process adopted and procedures followed by
decisionmakers in exercising their discretionary powers are in the public
interest.
The objectives and
outcomes component are the aspect of the public interest most referred to in
the literature. The process and procedure component appears to be less
discussed, but is just as important. This component would include:
a. complying
with applicable law (both its letter and spirit);
b. carrying
out functions fairly and impartially, with integrity and professionalism;
c. complying
with the principles of procedural fairness/natural justice;
d. acting
reasonably;
e. ensuring
proper accountability and transparency;
f. exposing corrupt
conduct or serious maladministration;
g. avoiding or
properly managing situations where their private interests conflict or might
reasonably be perceived to conflict with the impartial fulfilment of their
official duties; and
h. acting
apolitically in the performance of their official functions (not applicable to
elected public officials).
13. Applicability of
public interest was also focused in Pakistan Jurisprudence; the august Supreme
Court of Pakistan in “Javed Ibrahim Paracha v. Federation Of Pakistan and
others” (PLD 2004 SC 482) referred the “Public Interest” as under:
‘Public interest’
in the Black Law Dictionary, has been defined as the general welfare of the
public that warrants recognition and protection. Something in which the public
as a whole has a stake; esp., an interest that justifies governmental
regulation.”
In a case reported as “Ashfaq Ahmad
Kharal and 21 others v. Province Of Punjab Through Secretary, Law and
Parliamentary Affairs and others” (PLD 2024 Lahore 12) this Court after
having a survey of case laws on the subject held on the definition of “Public
Interest” in following words:
“Now before we examine the impugned
Notifications on this touch stone, it is necessary to understand what ‘Public
Interest’ means. Although, the expression “public interest” has not been
defined in any law, however, this expression is to be understood and
interpreted in the light of entire scheme, purpose and object of the enactment in
which it is employed.”
14. Code of conduct for
prosecutors issued by the Prosecutor General Punjab under Section 17 of the CPS
Act, also gives space to public interest as per Para 5B which requires the
prosecutors that in every case where there is sufficient evidence to justify a
prosecution a prosecutor must go on to consider whether a prosecution is
required in the public interest and while doing so shall keep in the mind the
public interest factors. The para 5.11 of the Code of conduct further requires
the prosecutors as under;
In
deciding the public interest, the prosecutors must take into account the views
of the victims however this is not the determining factor. The CPS does not act
for victims or their families in the same way as lawyers act for their clients,
and prosecutors must form an overall view of the public interest.
Thus, as held by judgement of Federal Court of
Australia referred in paragraph-9 above that public interest appears in the
form of a list of considerations to be taken into account as factors for
evaluation when making a determination, Code of conduct for prosecutors in the
same line as per para 5.12 lays down the following factors of public interest
which must be kept in mind by the prosecutors while applying public interest
test;
a) How serious is the
offence?
b) The extent of
culpability of the offender?
c) The circumstances of the
Victim?
d) The age and
circumstances of the offender
e) The impact of the
offence on the community
f) The remorse shown by
the offender or actions taken by him to undo the wrong
g) Is prosecution a
proportionate response?
15. Now coming to the case in
hand. It was the story of prosecution that two unknown accused in order to
commit robbery have caused injuries to Gul Muhammad through firing. Learned
counsel for the petitioner claimed false implication of the petitioner on the
grounds that on suspicion petitioner was arrested in this case under Section 54
of Cr.P.C., on 18.07.2023, put to test identification parade on 31.07.2023
wherein only complainant has participated whereas the injured Gul Muhammad had
never confronted the petitioner in any proceedings including test
identification parade and Gul Muhammad injured has also not made any statement
under Section 161 of Cr.P.C., thus, prayed for release of petitioner on bail.
16. Heard.
Record perused.
17. Case
analysis collects only one vital fact in issue in this case i.e.,
identification of accused/petitioner, which could not have properly been
attended or addressed by the prosecution. Facts highlighted by learned counsel
for the petitioner, verified by the learned Deputy Prosecutor General could not
fill the pitfall created due to disassociation of injured Gul Muhammad in the
identification process and there is no support to the prosecution version that
actually it was the petitioner who fired at the injured. Rags of evidence are
being made sticky to flower the barren case; such synthetic flow at this stage
of the proceedings hardly had any effect to cut the relief of petitioner for
bail. Mere recovery of some amount and motorcycle from the petitioner, or
criminal history cannot be considered valid material to decline him the
concession of bail even on statutory ground of delay in conclusion of trial
until the offender is convicted in such cases as held in “Moundar and others
versus The State” (PLD 1990 Supreme Court 934).
18. In a case, reported as “Akhtar
versus Khawas Khan and another” (2024 SCMR 476), Supreme Court of Pakistan
has held that the burden of proof on prosecution i.e., “proof beyond reasonable
doubt” also applies at all stages including the pre-trial stage, and even at
the time of deciding whether the accused is entitled to bail or not.
Prosecution so far has not discharged such burden successfully. Therefore,
petitioner has succeeded to make out a case for further inquiry. Further,
report of learned trial Court bearing No. 125 dated 08.07.2025 reflects that
charge was framed in this case on 29.04.2025 and prosecution was responsible
for causing delay in conclusion of trial. Petitioner is behind the bars since
18.07.2023 who had already completed his statutory period of one year;
therefore, has made out a case for bail not only on merits but on statutory
ground of delay in conclusion of trial as well. There is no likelihood of
conclusion of petitioner’s trial in near future and the
relief on the basis of such right so accrued in his favour cannot be refused to
him unless he is found to be hardened, desperate or dangerous criminal,
a previous convict for an offence punishable with death or imprisonment for
life or accused of an act of terrorism punishable with death or imprisonment
for life, but no such exception was found in the case of present petitioner.
Consequently, while placing reliance on cases reported as “Shakeel Shah
versus The State and others” (2022 SCMR 1), “Nadeem Samson versus The
State and others.” (PLD 2022 Supreme Court 112), this petition is allowed and the petitioner is
admitted to bail subject to his furnishing bail bond in the sum of Rs.
2,00,000/- with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial
Court.
(A.A.K.) Petition allowed