1. CH. MUHAMMAD IBRAHIM ZIA, C.J.---The above revision petition has been filed from an order of the Shariat Court dated 11.12.2015, whereby, criminal revision petition filed by the petitioners, herein, for cancellation of the bail granted to the accused-respondent by the District Criminal Court Bhimber, has been dismissed.
2. 2.The brief facts forming the background of this revision petition are that Zaffar Iqbal, complainant, filed a written report at Police Station Barnala on 05.06.2013 at 21:15 p.m. alleging therein that he is resident of Dhongi and was at home, along with Nadeem son of Asghar. At about 8:00 p.m., Atif alias Atif son of Mumtaz along with another unknown person came to his house and demanded the charas. The complainant told them that now he is not running the business of charas. Upon this both the accused started quarrel with him and Nadeem. Atif alias As slapped him and pulled out the pistol and fired two shots upon the complainant with intention to kill him. One of the fires hit him at his left arm while the other hit at his rib. The complainant fell down. Nadeem tried to catch hold of accused, upon which Atif alias Ati also made a fire with pistol at him which hit him at his throat who also fell down. The accused Atif and the other unknown person had come there on Honda Motorcycle. On hearing the sound of fire, complainant's brothers, Khadim Hussain, Mohammad Akram sons of Muhammad Sharif and other inmates of the house witnessed the occurrence. The motive as alleged is that the accused were habitual of narcotics who on refusal to give the charas became angry and injured the complainant and his companion. On the aforesaid report, a case was registered against the accused at Police Station Barnala in the offences under sections 324, 337-F, 34, A.P.C. The accused respondent was apprehended and after necessary investigation, the challan was presented in the offences under sections 302, 324, ,337-F-215/6, 337-D and 34, A.P.C., before the District Court of Criminal Jurisdiction Bhimber. The accused respondent filed a bail application after arrest before the District Court of Criminal Jurisdiction Bhimber on 21.08.2013, which was refused by the said Court vide its order dated 13.11.2013, however, he was allowed the bail subsequently by the said Court through order dated 21.02.2014. The complainant filed a revision petition before the Shariat Court, which has also been dismissed through the impugned judgment dated 12.2015, hence this revision petition.
3. 3.Raja Inamullah, Advocate, counsel for the petitioner-complainant stated the brief case history and submitted that the Courts below have fallen in gross error of law while enlarging the accused respondent on bail. He seriously objected to the trial Court's decision on the ground that the same trial Court while disposing off the bail application through order dated 13.11.2013 clearly observed that the accused is not entitled for concession of bail. He is fully connected with the commission of pin-bailable offence which falls within the prohibitory clause, but amazingly, after a couple of months' time the trial Court on the basis of same material enlarged the accused on bail, thus, the judgment of the trial Court is violation of principle of administration of justice. The learned Shariat Court has also not appreciated the legal and factual proposition involved in the case and failed to resolve the proposition raised in the revision petition. Thus, the impugned judgment is not sustainable, therefore, while accepting 'this revision petition the concession of bail granted to the accused may kindly be recalled. He referred to the case reported as Muhammad Sultan v. The State and another [1999 PCr. LJ (Lahore) 1218].
4. 4.Mr. Mehmood Hussain Chaudhary, Additional Advocate-General supported the version of the counsel for the petitioners.
5. 5.Conversely, Raja Mazhar Iqbal, Advocate, counsel for the accused-respondent forcefully defended the impugned judgment and submitted that the accused according to the prosecution own stated story is entitled for concession of bail as no act is attributed to him which could justify his involvement in the commission, of offence. Mete presence at the place of occurrence is alleged the effect of which has yet to be determined in the light of the evidence produced by the prosecution. He further submitted that despite presenting the final report under section 173, Cr.P.C. on 12.11.2013. The prosecution failed to conclude the proceedings of the case and failed to produce the witnesses, which amounts to miscarriage of justice. The case was challenged in year 2013 but due to unnecessary litigation in relation to bail, the matter is being lingered on. Therefore, the revision petition has no substance, it is liable to be dismissed. He further stated that the evidence of most of the important witness has been recorded. Thus, the disposal of the case on merit will serve the purpose of justice. Therefore, the revision petition may be dismissed. He referred to the case reported as Muhammad Bakhsh v. The State and another [1991 PCr. LJ 667].
6. 6.We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record made available. Even otherwise, as for our own satisfaction we have called for the record of the trial Court and in view of its examination and the proposition involved, in our opinion, recalling of the concession of bail granted to a person in such like situation after a period of almost three years will not bring any fruitful purpose, rather disposal of the case on merits is necessary for the ends of justice.
7. 7.The argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner to the extent of contents of the order of the trial Court prima facie has substance that the impugned judgment is not well-worded, speaking one and lacking proper application of judicial mind. However, keeping in view the overall facts and circumstances of the case, merely on the ground of ill-drafting of the judgment, the concession of bail cannot be recalled, which otherwise in view of the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case appears to be justified. Without detailed discussion on merits of the case and other circumstances, according to the allegation levelled against the accused- respondent and the material brought on record, enlargement of the accused on bail does not appear to be violative of the principle of administration of justice or of without sufficient ground.
8. According to the celebrated principle of law once the bail is granted by a competent Court, for recalling the same extraordinary grounds like violation of the statutory provisions, arbitrariness etc. are required, whereas, in this case no such grounds are available.
9. 8.As the evidence of most important witness has been recorded, whereas some of the remaining witnesses are of mere formal nature and if the parties cooperate with the Court and the Court also seriously conducts the proceedings, then the trial can be concluded within a specified period. In view of the aforesaid proceedings conducted by the trial Court, for the ends of justice we deem it proper to direct the trial Court to make serious efforts and the parties are also directed to cooperate with the Court and conclude the prosecution while producing the witnesses. The trial Court shall conclude the proceedings of the case within 4 months' time from the communication of this order and also furnish the report of monthly progress to the Additional Registrar of the Court, Circuit Mirpur.
10. 9.As in this case challan was presented on 12.11.2013 and almost three years period has been passed, therefore, for our own satisfaction we have also summoned the .record of the trial Court.
11. Regrettably, after 12.8.2015, the statement of not a single witness has been recorded by the trial Court. The examination of the interim orders recorded by the trial Court reveals that mostly the adjournments have been granted due to non-appearance of the prosecution witnesses or the counsel for the complainant, although, on some dates, the case has been adjourned due to the counsel for the accused. The proceedings conducted by the trial Court are not satisfactory. It appears that the trial Court has also not seriously conducted the proceedings and adjourned the case for one or the other reason. Such like conduct of the trial Court amounts to frustrate the administration of justice.
12. This revision petition stands disposed of with the above observation. The office shall immediately communicate this order as well as the record to the trial Court.