The doctrine of parity in bail matters encapsulates that like cases should be treated alike, whereas the case of further inquiry pre-supposes the tentative assessment which may create doubt with respect to the involvement of accused in the crime.

2023 SCMR 184

The doctrine of parity in bail matters encapsulates that like cases should be treated alike, whereas the case of further inquiry pre-supposes the tentative assessment which may create doubt with respect to the involvement of accused in the crime.

 Whenever reasonable doubt arises with regard to the participation of an accused person in the crime or about the truth or probability of the prosecution case and the evidence proposed to be produced in support of the charge, the accused should not be deprived of benefit of bail and in such a situation it would be better to keep him on bail than in jail during the trial. The prosecution, in order to make out a case for refusal of bail to an accused, is primarily supposed to place on record material on the basis of which he is believed to be involved in a non-bailable offence, but in the absence of such material the court, for the purpose of releasing the accused on bail, instead of dilating upon the facts of the case in details, can dispose of the matter by holding that his detention is unjustified or unreasonable.

It is well settled that further inquiry is a question which must have some nexus with the result of the case for which a tentative assessment of the material on record is to be considered for reaching a just conclusion. The case of further inquiry pre-supposes the tentative assessment which may create doubt with respect to the involvement of accused in the crime. It is well settled that the object of a trial is to make an accused face the trial, and not to punish an under trial prisoner. The basic idea is to enable the accused to answer criminal prosecution against him rather than let him rot behind bars. The accused is entitled to expeditious access to justice, which includes a right to a fair and expeditious trial without any unreasonable and inordinate delay. In the case of Zaigham Ashraf v. State and others (2016 SCMR 18), this Court held that the words "reasonable grounds" as contained in Section 497, Cr.P.C., required the prosecution to show to the court that it was in possession of sufficient material/evidence, constituting 'reasonable grounds' that accused had committed an offence falling within the prohibitory limb of Section 497, Cr.P.C. For getting the relief of bail accused only had to show that the evidence/material collected by the prosecution and/or the defence plea taken by him created reasonable doubt/suspicion in the prosecution case and he was entitled to avail the benefit of it. To curtail the liberty of a person was a serious step in law, therefore, the judges should apply judicial mind with deep thought for reaching at a fair and proper conclusion albeit tentatively. Such exercise should not be carried out in vacuum or in a flimsy and casual manner as that would defeat the ends of justice because if the accused charged, was ultimately acquitted at the trial then no reparation or compensation could be awarded to him for the long incarceration, as the provisions of Criminal Procedure Code and the scheme of law on the subject did not provide for such arrangements to repair the loss, caused to an accused person, detained in jail without just cause and reasonable grounds. While the dictum laid down in the case of Alam Zeb and another v. State and others. (PLD 2014 SC 760), reasonable grounds had to be grounds which were legally tenable, admissible in evidence and appealing to a reasonable judicial mind as opposed to being whimsical, arbitrary or presumptuous.