(1) Bail cannot be withheld as punishment.
(2) Accused is presumed to be innocent unless found guilty.
So far as the alleged confession of the petitioner before police during investigation is concerned, the niceties of Article 38 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order 1984 are quite lucid that no confession made to a police officer shall be proved as against a person accused of any offence, while Article 39 emphasizes that, subject to Article 40, no confession made by any person whilst he is in the custody of a police officer, unless it be made in the immediate presence of a Magistrate, shall be proved as against such person. Seemingly, a confession made before the police is not made admissible by dint of the aforesaid provisions of the Qanun-eShahadat Order 1984 in order to preserve and safeguard the philosophy of safe administration of criminal justice and is also based on public policy. In the aforesaid backdrop, we are sanguine that the case of petitioner requires further inquiry to prove his guilt which can only be thrashed out after recording of evidence in the Trial Court.
It is a well settled notion of law 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. It pre-supposes the tentative assessment which may create doubt with respect to the involvement of the accused in the crime. The law of bails is not a stagnant law but is developing with the exigencies of time. The expression "reasonable grounds" as contained under Section 497, Cr.P.C., necessitated the prosecution to show that it is in possession of sufficient material or evidence to demonstrate that accused had committed an offence falling within the prohibitory limb of Section 497, Cr.P.C. However for seeking the concession of bail, the accused person has to show that the material or evidence collected during investigation against him creates reasonable doubt or suspicion in the prosecution case. While deciding bail applications, it is the foremost duty of the Courts to apply a judicious mind tentatively for reaching the just and proper conclusion regarding whether reasonable grounds are made out or not to enlarge the accused on bail, and the expression ‘reasonable grounds’ signifies and corresponds to the grounds which are legally rational, acceptable in evidence and attractive to the judicial mind, as opposed to being imaginative, fallacious and/or presumptuous. Whenever reasonable doubt ascends with regard to the involvement of an accused person in the crime or about the certainty or probability of the prosecution case and the evidence proposed to be produced in support of the charge in Court during trial, the accused should not be deprived of the benefit of bail and it would be better to keep him on bail than in jail. The basic idea is to enable the accused to answer the criminal prosecution against him rather than to make him rot behind bars. The accused is entitled to expeditious access to justice, which includes the right to a fair and expeditious trial without any unreasonable or inordinate delay. Certain basic principles regarding grant or refusal of bail are settled i.e. that bail cannot be withheld as punishment; every person is presumed to be innocent unless found guilty by a competent court; every person is entitled to a fair trial, which includes a trial without inordinate delay; and that the basic philosophy of criminal jurisprudence is that the prosecution has to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt and this principle 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.
Crl.P.1054/2023
Akhtar v. Khwas Khan and another
Mr. Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar
23-10-2023
 Bail cannot be withheld as punishment. (2) Accused is presumed to be innocent unless found guilty. (3) The.......){kind=link}
0 Comments