The case of further inquiry pre-supposes the tentative assessment which may create doubt with respect to the involvement of the accused in the crime whereas the expression “reasonable grounds” refers to grounds which may be legally tenable, admissible in evidence, and appealing to a reasonable judicial mind as opposed to being whimsical, arbitrary, or presumptuous. The prosecution has to demonstrate that it is in possession of sufficient material/evidence, constituting 'reasonable grounds' that accused had committed an offence falling within the prohibitory limb of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, while for attaining bail, the accused has 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 is entitled to the benefit of bail. For all intents and purposes, the doctrine of ‘further inquiry’ denotes a notional and exploratory assessment that may create doubt regarding the involvement of the accused in the crime. It is a well-settled exposition of law 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 the criminal prosecution against him, rather than let him rot behind bars. The astuteness and insight that bail is the rule and jail is the exception is overwhelmingly recognized through the repetitive pronouncements of this Court. There is no hard and fast rule or inflexible principle to regulate the exercise of the discretion for grant of bail except that the discretion should be exercised judiciously and there is no inexorable principle in the matter of extending bail but it depends on the facts and circumstances of each case while exercising judicial discretion in granting, refusing, or cancelling the facility of bail, which is neither punitive nor preventative, but is based on an important feature of the criminal justice system that cannot be ignored; that just as liberty is precious for an individual, simultaneously, the interest of the society in maintaining law and order is also dominant. In our view, both are immensely indispensable for the survival and perpetuation of a civilized society.
Doctrine of parity in criminal cases.
Crl.P.L.A.35-K/2024
Attaullah v. The State Mr. Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar
04-04-2024
0 Comments