The Supreme Court has held that false implication or exploitation, which had become an “epidemic in our society”, had to be safeguarded.
A division bench of the apex court comprising Justice Ijaz ul Ahsan and Justice Sayyed Mazahar Ali Akbar Naqvi heard a petition against a Lahore High Court order wherein the pre-arrest bail of an accused was cancelled.
Justice Naqvi, while authoring a four-page order, referred to the court’s last year judgment wherein it had enunciated the principles for cancellation or recalling of bail. These principles were: (1) If the bail granting order is patently illegal, erroneous, factually incorrect and has resulted into miscarriage of justice. (2) That the accused has misused the concession of bail in any manner.(3) That the accused has tried to hamper prosecution evidence by persuading or pressuring prosecution witnesses. (4) That there is likelihood of absconsion of the accused beyond the jurisdiction of court. (5) That the accused has attempted to interfere with the smooth course of investigation. (6) That the accused misused his liberty while indulging into similar offence. (7) That some fresh facts and material has been collected during the course of investigation with tends to establish guilt of the accused.
The court held that ordinarily the superior courts were reluctant to interfere into the order extending concession of bail. “The rationale behind that is that once the concession of bail is granted by a court of competent jurisdiction, then very strong and exceptional grounds would be required to hamper with the concession extended to a person who is otherwise clothed with free life, any contrary action of the court would be synonymous to curtailing the liberty of such person, which otherwise is a precious right guaranteed under the Constitution of the country.”
The verdict noted that the country’s judicial system had evolved beside others the concept of "benefit of reasonable doubt" for the sake of safe administration of criminal justice which could only be extended at the time of adjudication before the trial court or court of appeal rather if it was satisfying all legal contours, then it must be extended even at the bail stage which was a “sine qua non” of a judicial pronouncement.
“Hence, any unjustified action by the court of law intruding into the affairs would certainly frustrate the free life of an accused person after availing the concession of bail,” read the order.
“In our society mere levelling of accusation based upon trumped-up charges is not something beyond imagination. Therefore, false implication/ exploitation which has become epidemic in our society has to be safeguarded by the majesty of the courts.”
Comments are moderated and generally will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive.
For more information, please see our Comments FAQ