 |
| 295 B and 298 C accused granted bail after 3years and 8 months by Supreme Court . |
روحان احمد اور ریاست سے متعلق کیس سے متعلق سپریم کورٹ آف پاکستان۔ دستاویز میں روحان احمد کو ضمانت دینے کے عدالتی فیصلے کا خاکہ پیش کیا گیا ہے، لاہور ہائی کورٹ کی جانب سے ضمانت مسترد کرنے کے فیصلے کو کالعدم قرار دیا گیا ہے۔ آرڈر کے اہم نکات یہ ہیں:
1. **پس منظر**: لاہور ہائی کورٹ کی جانب سے دوسری بعد از گرفتاری ضمانت کی درخواست مسترد ہونے کے بعد روحان احمد نے ضمانت کی درخواست کی۔ اس پر واٹس ایپ/ایس ایم ایس کے ذریعے گستاخانہ مواد پھیلانے کا الزام تھا۔
2. **ضمانت کی قانونی بنیاد**: سپریم کورٹ نے بنیادی طور پر ضابطہ فوجداری (سی آر پی سی) کی دفعہ 497(1) کے تحت قانونی بنیادوں پر ضمانت دی، جو ضمانت کی اجازت دیتا ہے اگر ملزم کو مسلسل مدت سے زائد عرصے تک حراست میں رکھا گیا ہو۔ دو سال تک مقدمے کی سماعت بغیر کسی وجوہات کی بنا پر آگے بڑھ رہی ہے جو ملزمان سے منسوب نہیں ہے۔
3. **عدالت کے نتائج**: سپریم کورٹ نے پایا کہ مقدمے کی سماعت میں تاخیر ہائی کورٹ کی جانب سے کارروائی کی معطلی کی وجہ سے ہوئی، نہ کہ ملزمان کے اقدامات۔ اس نے اس بات پر زور دیا کہ قانونی دفعات کے تحت ملزم کے ضمانت کے حق کو منصفانہ ٹرائل اور مناسب عمل کی آئینی ضمانتوں کی حمایت حاصل ہے۔
4. **فیصلہ**: سپریم کورٹ نے لاہور ہائی کورٹ کے حکم کو کالعدم قرار دیتے ہوئے روحان احمد کو ضمانت پر رہا کرنے کا حکم دیا، جس کے لیے انہیں ضمانتی مچلکے جمع کرانے کی ضرورت تھی۔
5. **انتظامی نوٹ**: عدالت نے لاہور ہائی کورٹ کے رجسٹرار کو ہدایت کی کہ فوجداری انصاف کی انتظامیہ کو بہتر بنانے کے لیے یہ معاملہ چیف جسٹس کی توجہ میں لایا جائے۔
یہ خلاصہ عدالت کے فیصلے کے نچوڑ اور روحان احمد کو ضمانت دینے میں شامل قانونی اصولوں کا احاطہ کرتا ہے۔
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PAKISTAN
(Appellate Jurisdiction)
Bench-II:
Mr. Justice Syed Mansoor Ali Shah
Mr. Justice Jamal Khan Mandokhail
Mr. Justice Athar Minallah
Crl.P.894-L/2023
(Against the order of Lahore High Court, Lahore
dated 22.08.2023, passed in Crl. Misc.No.12650-B of 2023)
Rohan Ahmad
...…. Petitioner(s)
Versus
The State, etc.
….Respondent(s)
For the petitioner(s):
Sh. Usman Karim-ud-Din, ASC.
For the complainant:
Mr. Shahid Tasawar Rao, ASC.
a/w complainant.
For the state:
Raja M. Shafqat Khan Abbasi, DAG.
a/w Naveed, I.O.
Date of hearing:
15.01.2024
ORDER
Syed Mansoor Ali Shah, J.- The Petitioner seeks leave to
appeal against the order dated 22.08.2023, whereby his second postarrest bail in case FIR No.C-29/2020 dated 26.05.2020, under Section
11 PECA, 2016 read with sections 295-B, 298-C, 120-B, 34 and 109 PPC
at the FIA Cybercrime Reporting Centre, Police Station FIA Cybercrime
Wing, Lahore was declined.
2.
Briefly, according to the crime report, the petitioner
disseminated blasphemous content to the complainant through whats
app/SMS using the mobile network and later on upon raid conducted at
the residence of the petitioner blasphemous material was recovered.
3.
We have heard the arguments of learned counsel for the
parties and gone through the record of the case.
Crl. P. No. 894-L of 2023
2
4.
The first post arrest bail petition of the petitioner was
dismissed on merits on 26.08.2021. The second bail petition was
preferred by the petitioner on statutory ground, as well as, on fresh
grounds, which too was dismissed by the High Court vide impugned
order dated 22.08.2023. Hence this petition for leave to appeal.
5.
Taking up the ground of statutory bail, the record reveals
that the petitioner was arrested on 26.05.2020. During the proceedings
before the trial court, the petitioner moved an application under Section
265-C, CrPC for providing him documents mentioned in the police
report. The said application of the petitioner was dismissed by the trial
court on 28.05.2021. The petitioner challenged the said order before the
High Court through Criminal Revision1 and the High Court was pleased
to suspend the proceedings before the trial court vide order dated
07.09.2021. The said Criminal Revision is still pending and the
injunctive relief granted continues.
6.
According to the third proviso to Section 497 CrPC a court
shall release the accused on bail in an offence punishable with death if
he has been detained for a continuous period exceeding two years,
unless the delay in the trial has been occasioned by an act or omission of
the accused or any other person on his behalf or the conditions
mentioned in the fourth proviso are attracted, which is not so in the
present case. In our view the statutory right to be released on bail under
the third proviso to Section 497 CrPC is not merely a statutory right but
also stands firmly on constitutional guarantees under Article 4, 9 and
10A of the Constitution. Under the said Articles the accused, like any
other citizen enjoys the protection of law and to be treated in accordance
with law; the accused cannot be deprived of liberty, except in accordance
with law; and in determination of any criminal charge against him the
accused shall be entitled to a fair trial and due process. These basket of
rights are available to an accused who enjoys a presumption of
innocence in his favour and understandably cannot be subjected to an
indefinite pre-trial detention and therefore cannot be denied bail under
the third proviso to section 497(1), Cr.P.C unless there is convincing
material that the delay has been occasioned by the act or omission of the
accused himself or if his case falls under any of the exceptions under the
fourth proviso to section 497 CrPC.
1 Criminal Revision No.31120 of 202Crl. P. No. 894-L of 2023
3
7.
For an accused to be denied statutory bail, it must be
demonstrated that his act or omission, was intentionally aimed at
prolonging the trial. It must show a deliberate pattern of seeking
adjournments without valid reasons during key hearings such as the
examination or cross-examination of prosecution witnesses. Mere
counting the number of adjournment requests alone is not enough to
justify withholding bail. The application of the third proviso to Section
497(1) of the Cr.P.C when interpreted in the light of Articles 9 and 10A of
the Constitution, broadens and enhances the rights of an accused who is
presumed innocent during trial. The prosecution must present clear
evidence that the accused or his counsel was actively trying to delay the
trial through unnecessary adjournments or irrelevant applications, in
order to justify denying bail. As already held by this Court, the act or
omission on the part of the accused to delay of the timely conclusion of
the trial must be an outcome of a concerted and consistent effort of the
accused orchestrated to delay the trial. See Shakeel Shah and Nadeem
Samson.2 Learned counsel for the complainant, as well as, learned DAG
have failed to establish that the delay in the trial was due to the act or
omission of the accused whereas, as discussed hereunder, the record
reveals that the delay has been due to the act of the court.
8.
In this case the trial has been suspended by the High Court
on the filing of the Criminal Revision by the petitioner and during the
continuum of the said suspension, the statutory period of delay i.e.,
continuous period exceeding two years under clause (b) of the third
proviso to Section 497(1) CrPC has lapsed. We have gone through the
order sheet of the proceedings in the Criminal Revision which is still
pending before the High Court and it has been over three years since the
petitioner was arrested. The Criminal Revision has not progressed for no
fault of the petitioner, there is nothing on the record that the delay has
been occasioned by the act or omission of the petitioner. The delay has
been mainly due to the act of the High Court as the case was repeatedly
relisted and not taken up on several hearings for no fault of the accused
and thus the indefinite delay in the trail has been due to the act of the
2
Shakeel Shah v. The State, 2022 SCMR 1; and Nadeem Samson v. State, PLD 2022 SC 112.
Crl. P. No. 894-L of 2023
4
High Court which cannot be attributed to the accused in any
circumstance.3
9.
While the High Court enjoys the authority to order stay or
suspend the proceedings in a criminal trial, in a deserving case, it is
equally important that such an exercise of authority must be carried out
with caution and circumspection, ensuring expeditious disposal of the
case after the grant of injunctive relief. High Court should not lose sight
of the case where it has exercised its extraordinary power of staying or
suspending the proceeding of a criminal trial but should make it a point
of finally disposing of such proceedings as early as possible.4 Public
interest necessitates that the administration of justice is improved for
sustaining the faith of a common man in rule of law and justice delivery
system, which are closely and inextricably linked.
10.
For the above reasons, this petition is converted into appeal
and allowed. The impugned order of the High Court dated 22.08.2023 is
set aside. The petitioner is admitted to bail subject to furnishing bail
bonds in the sum of Rs.100,000/- with two sureties in the like amount
to the satisfaction of the trial Court.
11.
A copy of this Order be dispatched to the Registrar of the
Lahore High Court to be placed before the Chief Justice for improving the
administration of criminal justice in such like matters.
Islamabad,
15th January, 2024.
Approved for reporting
Iqbal
Judge
Judge
Judge
3
Fida Hussain v. State, PLD 2002 SC 46; Sher Ahmed v. State, 1995 SCMR 1944; Zahir Hussain Shah. v.
State, PLD 1995 SC 49.
4
Imtiyaz Ahmad v. State of Uttar Pradesh, AIR 2012 SC 642.
No comments:
Post a Comment