The Supreme Court has held that false implication or exploitation, which had turn into an “epidemic in our society”, needed to be safeguarded.
A division bench of the apex courtroom comprising Justice Ijaz ul Ahsan and Justice Sayyed Mazahar Ali Akbar Naqvi heard a petition towards a Lahore High Court order whereby the pre-arrest bail of an accused was cancelled.
Justice Naqvi, whereas authoring a four-page order, referred to the courtroom’s final yr judgment whereby it had enunciated the rules for cancellation or recalling of bail. These rules have been: (1) If the bail granting order is patently unlawful, faulty, factually incorrect and has resulted into miscarriage of justice. (2) That the accused has misused the concession of bail in any method.(3) That the accused has tried to hamper prosecution proof by persuading or pressuring prosecution witnesses. (4) That there may be probability of absconsion of the accused past the jurisdiction of courtroom. (5) That the accused has tried to intrude with the graceful course of investigation. (6) That the accused misused his liberty whereas indulging into related offence. (7) That some contemporary details and materials has been collected throughout the course of investigation with tends to ascertain guilt of the accused.
The courtroom held that ordinarily the superior courts have been reluctant to intrude 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 famous that the nation’s judicial system had developed beside others the idea of “benefit of reasonable doubt” for the sake of secure administration of prison justice which might solely be prolonged on the time of adjudication earlier than the trial courtroom or courtroom of attraction fairly if it was satisfying all authorized contours, then it should be prolonged even on 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,” learn 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.”