Amir Hani Muslim, J.--The Petitioner seeks post-arrest bail in case F.I.R. No. 403/13 dated 8.7.2013, under Sections 302/34, PPC; registered at Police Station Gujjar Pura, Lahore.
2. It is contended by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the case against the petitioner is of further inquiry as before the submission of the challan, investigation was conducted twice. In the first investigation report, the petitioner was declared innocent whereas in the second report, he was found present at the place of the occurrence. He next contended, that it is settled law that such like cases fall within the term "further inquiry", therefore, the petitioner is entitled to the concession of bail. He, in support of his contentions, has relied upon the cases reported as Manzoor vs The State (PLD 1972 SC 81), Nazir Ahmed vs The State (PLD 2014 SC 241), Muhammad Shakeel vs The State (PLD 2014 SC 458) and Syed Khalid Hussain Shah vs The State (2014 SCM R 12).
3. As against this, the learned counsel for the Complainant and the learned Additional Prosecutor General have opposed the grant of bail and contended that F.I.R was promptly lodged in which the petitioner was assigned specific role of firing at the deceased. They further contended that ocular material corroborates the locale of injury on the person of the deceased.
4. The learned Law Officer further contended that the petitioner is a habitual offender and is involved in 6 criminal cases registered against him at Police Station, Gujjarpura, Lahore. A list produced hereunder containing the number and nature of criminal cases registered against the petitioner at Police Station Gujjar Pura, Lahore, has been produced in the Court by the learned Law Officer:-- Sr. No. FIR No./date Under Section Police Station
1. 210/2010 13-05-2010 6/9 CNSA Gujarpura, Lahore
2. 328/2012 27-07-2003 337,337-F1, PPC 148/149 F1, PPCGujarpura, Lahore
3. 707/2010 28-08-2008 148/149,324/506, PPC Gujarpura, Lahore
4. 111/2005 03-03-2005 302/34, PPC Gujarpura, Lahore
5. 911/2011 17-08-2011 5/7/78, 278/186, PPC Gujarpura, Lahore
6. 403/2013 08-07-2013 304/34, PPC Gujarpura, Lahore The learned Law Officer further contended that the petitioner was acquitted in some of the cases by way of compromise.
5. We have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and have perused the record. The F.I.R was lodged on 8.7.2013, whereas the petitioner was arrested, on 9.8.2014. The co-accused is still at large. e charge was framed on 9.8.2014 whereafter the prosecution Witnesses were, appearing in the trial Court, but on one pretext or the other, the case did not proceed. It appears that on 17.11.2014, an Application under Section 265-C, Cr.P.C. Has been filed, by the petitioner, which is pending adjudication and main trial is not proceeding. Mere pendency Hof Application under Section 265-C, A Cr.P.C. Does not amount to stay of trial. The trial Court shall proceed with the trial irrespective of the pendency of the aforesaid Application, which may be decided on its own merits.
6. We would not like to comment upon the criminal cases registered against the petitioner, list of which has been produced before us by the learned Law Officer pertaining to different years. As per learned Counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner was acquitted of the charge in these cases on the basis of compromise. We may observe that right of an accused to the concession of bail In a cognizable offence is not absolute. It is the discretion which a Court exercises by transferring the custody of an accused from Jail to the Court, which discretion is normally withheld if the accused abuses the concession by repeating the offence after the grant of bail. The criminal cases against the petitioner prior to the case in hand, prima facie, attracts the aforesaid, established norms.
7. The case law cited by the learned Counsel for the petitioner in support of his contentions, in the first place, is of no consequence where the petitioner has a criminal record. Even otherwise, the precedents in bail matters are of no help to a party, as it varies from case to- case depending upon the facts of each case. The Court has to examine as to whether accused has made out a case of further inquiry or not.
8. In the instant case, we are of the considered view that the F.I.R against the petitioner was promptly lodged in which specific role of firing at the deceased was attributed to the petitioner. The prosecution witnesses examined, under Section 161, Cr.P.C. Fully implicate the petitioner. No case of further inquiry has been made out.
9. This Petition is accordingly dismissed and leave refused., Needless to observe that the trial Court shall proceed with the trial uninfluenced by the observations made hereinabove and decide the case on the material produced by the parties at trial.