Zahid and Saeed respondents who were named as accused in the F.I.R. Lodged under section 302/34, P.P.C. On 27-7-1990, and were arrested on 14-9-1990, were allowed bail by Mr. Muhammad Zahoor Abbasi, Additional Sessions Judge, Faisalabad on 1-11-1990. Learned Additional Sessions Judge while granting bail, noted that the petitioners (respondents herein) had not caused any injury to the deceased; that no overt act had been attributed to them, and as such attraction of section 34, P.P.C. In the circumstances of the case, was a question of further enquiry.
2. The complainant feeling aggrieved has approached this Court for cancellation of their bail.
3. It came to light during the arguments that Zahid respondent was found to have suffered injuries in the occurrence while his co-accused who is still in jail, also was found to have suffered injuries in the same occurrence. The Danda said to have been snatched from Zahid respondent and the iron- pipe said to have been snatched from Saeed respondent, were handed over to the police and they were taken into possession. It is too obvious from the above facts that learned Additional Sessions Judge did not at all take into account all such facts, which he could have easily known if he had been a little bit cautious and had applied half of the mind even. Had he done so, he would have definitely come to the conclusion that there was a strong presumption about the presence of Zahid respondent at the spot at the time of occurrence and for other facts mentioned above, he might not have observed that no overt act had been attributed to any of the petitioners (respondents).
Instead of being judicious, he hastened to allow bail to the accused named for the commission of offence warranting capital punishment, within one month and sixteen days of their arrest.
In the circumstances, this petition is allowed, and the impugned order is set aside. The respondent shall be taken into custody and lodged in jail.
5. If the respondents move for bail, on the grounds of having been aggressed upon, the lower Court shall be at liberty to consider that and pass orders as deemed proper.
5. It is worthy recording as a note of caution that of late, it is becoming a practice in the lower Courts to be very liberal in grant of bail in offences of capital punishment even at the earliest stages without having regard to the implications. It is hoped that the judicial officers shall try to restrain from being too liberal and anxious in allowing bail to the accused charged with commission of offences warranting capital punishment, unless a good case for that is made out.