It goes without saying that an accused of a cognizable offence scheduled as non-bailable can only claim protection of anticipatory bail by reasonably demonstrating his intended arrest being contemplated by considerations mala fide and sinister, designed to abuse process of law. It is a judicial protection rooted into equity; whereas an accused in custody after completion of investigation can be released on bail on the touchstone of consideration statutorily enumerated in subsection 2 of section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, these two have no parallels.
For effective administration of criminal justice, it is most important that prosecution is allowed a meaningful opportunity to carry out and conclude the investigative process as apart from readily available evidence in the aftermaths of an incident it may lay hands upon incriminatory material that may possibly become available pursuant to disclosures in custody; this has been grievously ignored. Similarly, an anticipated failure of prosecution, no matter how loudly clamoured, cannot be received to set its case at naught even before it is taken off. Failure by the learned Additional Sessions Judge as well as learned Judge-in-Chamber of the Lahore High Court to give due weight to the statements of the witnesses and misconceived invocation of principle of consistency fails to commend our approval.
Admission to pre-arrest bail is a huge concession to an accused, required to be arrested in a cognizable offence as it exempts him from remission into custody, irreversibly foreclosing avenues for the prosecution to possibly secure further evidence, consequent upon disclosures, therefore, such a relief must only be extended in the face of considerations proportionately compelling; these are conspicuously lacking; it is most imperative to keep the scales in balance.
Cancellation of Bail
Crl.P.275/2021
Muhammad Ismail v. The State thr. P.G. Punjab and others
Mr. Justice Qazi Muhammad Amin Ahmed
17-11-2021
0 Comments