SHAHID HAMEED DAR, J. - Through this single order, I intend to dispose of following petitions for cancellation of bail moved under Section 497(5), Cr.P.C.
(i) Crl. Misc. No. 976-BC/2010 titled The State v. Mst. Rifim Shaheen".
(ii) Crl. Misc. No. 984-BC/2010 titled The State v. Muhammad Rasheed Akhtar.
(iii) Crl. Misc; No, 983-BC/2010 titled "The State v. Dr. Bilal Arshad.
2. Mst Riffat Shaheen and Muhammad Rasheed Akhtar respondents-accused were admitted to post arrest bail 6y this Court vide separate orders dated 14.12.2009 whereas Dr. Bilal Arshad accused was admitted to post arrest bail by this Court vide order dated 24.12.2009 in ease F.I.R. No. 24 of 2009, dated 17.10.2009 for the offences under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 409, 109, PPC read with Section 5(2) PCA, 1947, registered at police station, Anti- Corruption Establishment, Rawalpindi.
This F.I.R. Was got lodged by Anwar Ahmad Khan, Secretary Health, Govt, of the Punjab.
3. At the very outset, learned counsel for Mst. Riffat Shaheen, respondent-accused submits that the trial of the respondent-accused has commenced and nine prosecution witnesses have already been recorded/ examined. Further submits that trial of the accused is again fixed for today and there is every likelihood that some more prosecution evidence shall be recorded today by the learned Trial Court.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondents-accused have committed worst degree of fraud, forgery, cheating and corruption whereby they incurred loss of lacs of rupees to the Govt. Exchequer; the co-accused of the respondents-accused namely Dr. Khalid Iqbal Malik and Asif Ayub have been declined post arrest bail by the august Supreme Court of Pakistan with an observation which equally hits the merits of the respondents so, the bail granting orders passed in their favour may not be sustained; the respondents have been allowed bail without looking into the probability of existence of further inquiry into their guilt as contemplated under Section 497(2), Cr.P.C. So they can no longer enjoy the facility of bail due to said shortcoming in the bail granting orders; that after their release on bail, the respondents are vying for tempering with the prosecution evidence which amounts to misusing the concession of bail. He however, has admitted that the trial has commenced and nine prosecution witnesses till last date of hearing had been recorded by the Trial Court.
5. Syed Ali Shah Bukhari, Ch. Salim-ul-Haq and Zia-ul-Haq, learned counsel for the respondents- accused submit [n unison that the trial of the accused has already commenced, a number of prosecution witnesses stand recorded so interference in the bail granting orders may be in violation to the ratio of various judgments passed by the apex Court on the subject; the prosecution could not move for cancellation of bail before this Court in absence of any material/evidence hinting at alleged misuse of facility of bail; the request for cancellation of bail is not supported by any plausible or cogent evidence therefore the same may not be entertained.
Muhammad Ismail v. Muhammad Rafique and another (PLD 1989 Supreme Court 585). The State v.
Rashid Ahmad and another (1988 SCM R 1129), Amir Khan v. Ghoran and another (1985 SCM R 1487) and Muhammad Azhar v. Dilawar and another (2009 SCM R 1202)
7. On a query of this Court, learned counsel for the petitioner/complainant submits that the trial of the respondents-accused and that of their co-accused shall be concluded by the learned Trial Court in.3 to 4 months time.
8. I have heard the learned .Counsel for the parties and gone through the relevant record.
9. Without going into the merits of the case, I find that the respondents-accused alongwith their co-accused were indicted by the learned Trial Court on 13.7.2010 to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed a trial. The prosecution to-date, has produced nine witnesses in proof of the charge against the accused and all of them stand recorded/examined by the learned Trial Court. The trial is proceeding ahead at a satisfactory pace therefore, the learned counsel for the petitioner is confident that it shall be concluded within 3 to 4 months time period.
10. The Court have been slow and shown little interest in recalling the bail granting order on merits when the commencement of the trial is in sight or it has virtually commenced. The crucial point involved in such-like practice of not interfering with bail granting orders, post commencement of trial, is to avoid the subtle question of causing pre judice to the case of any of the parties locked in litigation. There is discernable wisdom in the above-said practice of hot telling provision of Section 497(5), Cr.P.C. Invoked in favour of the complainant/State once the trial of the accused has gone past the stage of framing of charge so as to keep the belief of litigants un-shakenly intact, in the administration of dispensation of criminal justice. I advantageously rely upon Muhammad Ismail's case (PLD 1989 SC 585) wherein a very important question of law and fact has been dealt with:- "However, the above-stated position notwithstanding, after hearing the learned counsel we feel that this appeal merits to be dismissed. Firstly, if the merit points involved herein are determined, the very practice relied upon by the learned counsel will go against the appellant. The trial is to commence within a fortnight; hence cancellation of bail at this stage would not be proper. But in the circumstances of this case there is a more vital point on account of which this appeal merits to be dismissed."
In the case of "The State v. Rashid Ahmad and another" (1988 SGMR 1129) while-dealing with the proposition of commencement of trial it has been held in head note "C" of the judgment as under:- S. 497(5)-Bail, cancellation of-Granting to accused by High Court in 1985 on wrong ground- Possibility existing that accused either had stood his trial or .That his trial was to commence soon- Order granting bail to accused maintained on ground other than one given by High Court (p. 1132)
D".
11. The case of the respondent/accused is different than the case of their co-accused who have been declined post arrest bail by august Supreme Court of Pakistan. The submission of learned counsel for the petitioner that after their release on bail,, the accused had been prevailing upon the prosecution witnesses' to temper with the prosecution evidence, is without any substance as no evidence in this respect could be hinted at by him, therefore, this submission cannot be made a basis for cancellation of respondents' bail concession.
12. It has been categorically submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner/complainant that there is a strong likelihood, of conclusion of the trial in next 3 to 4 months' time, therefore, I do no deem it proper to interfere with the bail granting orders or recall the same, albeit the commencement of the trial.
13. While keeping in view the faith and firm belief of the learned counsel for the complainant qua conclusion of the trial, the learned Trial Court is directed to accelerate the proceedings of the trial and ensure conclusion thereof, within four months from the date of receipt of the order of this Court. The Deputy Registrar (Judicial) of this Court is directed to convey this direction to the learned Trial Court by some swift means for compliance, preferably on telephone or through courier service or by both.