Through the instant petition, the Petitioner (Muhammad Farooq) is seeking post-arrest bail in FIR No.589 dated 08.09.2020 registered for the of fences under Sections 420/468/471 PPC with Police Station Tarnol, Islamabad.
2. Brief facts, as per FIR, are that on 06.09.2020 on spy information Complainant along with policy party reached 26 Number Stop at about 03:15 p.m. where a person sitting in the silver colored, Corolla Gli Model 2016-2017, bearing Registration No.AGK-789, as identified by the informer was apprehended, who on inquiry , confirmed that he is Muhammad Farooq alias Babar s/o Muhammad Anwar , resident of Chah Keykeri wala Bundi Madogi, Tehsil & District Jhang. After checking, vehicle Engine No. Z 503407 and Chassis No. NZE170R-419444 were found to be tampered with. Petitioner also showed Smart Registration Card ETO Token Slip, Transfer Deed along with Photocopy of CNIC of Mst. Saba Ahmad w/o Muhammad Ahmad which also seemed to be fake/forged. Being suspicious, the vehicle was taken into custody under Section 550 Cr.P.C. After chemical analysis of the vehicle its Chassis number plate was found cut & weld, whereas, Engine number appeared as Z-478742. The Smart Registration Card ETO Token Slip, Transfer Deed after verification from ETO were found bogus and after checking online, the original number of vehicle found as LEB-17A/6947. Therefore, the Petitioner after tampering Engine and Chassis numbers and preparing fake/bogus documents and by taking possession of the above said vehicle deprived the original owner from his lawful ownership, hence this FIR.
3. Learned counsel for the Petitioner contended that instant bail petition has been filed on statutory ground. He submitted that the alleged occurrence took place on 06.09.2020 and the FIR was registered on 08.09.2020, challan was submitted before the learned Trial Court on 21.01.2021 and the charge was framed on 25.02.2021. Despite the fact that all the prosecution witnesses are police officials yet till date not one PW has been produced before the Trial Court and the trial of the accused has not commenced with the result that the Petitioner has been behind bars for almost 17 months since his date of arrest i.e. 08.09.2020, thereby entitling him to statutory bail. That the allegations against the Petitioner are false and fabricated; that there is no justification for the delay; that offences do not fall within the ambit of prohibitory clause of Section 497, Cr.P.C., and there is no prior conviction of the Petitioner . Learned counsel for the Petitioner has relied upon the cases titled Ali Akbar Vs. The State, 2020 SCMR 1225 , Shakeel Shah Vs. The State, 2022 SCMR 1, and judgment of Honourable Supreme Court in case titled as Nadeem Samson Vs. The State, Crl. P. No.1016-L/2021. Learned counsel for the Petitioner has further submitted that the Petitioner is ready to furnish sufficient surety to the satisfaction of the Court, therefore, may be released on bail.
4. On the other hand, the learned State Counsel submitted that the delay could not be attributed to the State as on 12.11.2020, 26.11.2020, 10.12.2020 & 07.01.2021notices were not served on the Superintendent, Central Jail Adyala for production of accused (Muhammad Farooq) by the learned Trial Court. On 15.10.2020, 11.03.2021, 22.04.2021 and 09.09.2021 the case was adjourned due to Lawyers' strike. That on 06.05.2021, 20.05.2021, 03.06.2021 and 17.06.2021 the learned Trial Court was closed due to Covid-19 and that on 07.10.2021 the learned Presiding Of ficer was suf fering from Covid-19 and the case was adjourned. That on and 21.10.2021, 02.12.2021, 16.12.2021 and 27.01.2022 due to absence of prosecution witnesses matter was adjourned. On 18.11.2021, 13.01.2022 and 10.02.2022 case was adjourned due to absence of co-accused (Bakht Munir). The learned State Counsel also pointed out that there are six more FIRs pending against the Petitioner .
5. Arguments heard. Record perused.
6. The Petitioner has been charged with offences under Sections 420/468/417, PPC which are not punishable with death, therefore, his bail plea is based on part (a) of the 3rd Proviso of Section 497(1) Cr.P.C. As held in Shakeel Shah Vs. The State, 2022 SCMR 1, an accused has a statutory right to be released on bail under the aforesaid provision of law if his trial has not been concluded within a period of one year from the date of his arrest subject to certain conditions. First and foremost the court is to form an opinion that the delay in the trial has not been occasioned by an act or omission of the accused or that of any person acting on his behalf.
7. With respect to the first condition the Honourable Supreme Court in the said judgment stated that the act or omission on the part of the accused to delay the timely conclusion of the trial must by the result of a visible concerted effort orchestrated by the accu sed. Merely some adjournments sought by the counsel of the accused could not be counted as an act or omission on behalf of the accused to delay the conclusion of the trial unless the adjournments were sought without any sufficient cause on crucial hearings. Thus, mere mathematical counting of all the dates of adjournments sought for on behalf of the accused was not sufficient to deprive the accused of his right of bail under the 3rd proviso.
8. Keeping in view the said principle it is observed that the learned State counsel has not identified even a single date on which the trial could not procee d due to any act or omission occasione d by the accused or any other person acting on his behalf. Petitioner was arrested on 08.09.2020 and the charge was framed on 25.02.2021.
Examination of the order sheet of trial court reveals only one date on which the learned counsel for the Petitioner was not available due to which the matte r was adjourned. It is, therefore, evident that the delay in the trial cannot be attributed to the Petitioner . In so far as the adjournments obtained on behalf of the co-accused is concerned, it has already been held in Shaukat Ali Vs. Ghulam Abbas, 1998 SCMR 228, that the delay , if any, caused on account of nonappearance of co-accused could not be attributed to the accused.
9. Admittedly there is no prior conviction of the Petitioner . As far as pending FIRs are concerned, it is settled law that mere lodging of FIR is no ground to refuse bail. In such circumstances, it cannot be concluded that the Petitioner is a hardened, desperate or dangerous criminal or one who is accused of terrorism.
10. The upshot of the above discussion is that I am persuaded to grant bail in this case. Consequently, the instant bail application is allowed and the Petitioner is admitted to bail subject to furnishing bail bond in the sum of Rs. 25,000/- along with local surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned Trial Court. It is made clear that if the concession of bail is misused by the Petitioner or any delay in conclusion of trial is caused by him or anyone else acting on his behalf, the Trial Court shall be competent to recall the bail granted, after hearing the parties, strictly in accordance with the law.
11. Needless to mention that the above observations are tentative in nature, which shall in no way prejudice the learned Trial Court.