SHAHID vs THE STATE
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal filed against the judgment of the Lahore High Court, which dismissed the petitioner's application for post-arrest bail in a murder case. The petitioner, charged under sections 302, 148, and 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, argued that multiple police investigations had declared him innocent and placed him in Column-II of the report under section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to bail based on these conflicting police findings and the nature of the evidence. The Supreme Court held that the statements of eye-witnesses recorded under section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 directly implicated the petitioner as a principal accused. The Court determined that the High Court's discretion in refusing bail was not arbitrary, as the prosecution's case required a deeper appreciation of evidence not suitable for the appellate stage. Consequently, the Court refused leave to appeal, affirming that the existence of contradictory police reports does not automatically entitle an accused to bail when other incriminating material exists.
- Does a police report declaring an accused innocent in Column-II automatically entitle the accused to bail?
- Is the Supreme Court required to undertake a deep appreciation of evidence during a bail petition?
- Can a court deny bail when eye-witness statements recorded under section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 implicate the accused despite conflicting police reports?
- Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 148, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 149, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 337-H, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 173, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 161, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
' FAQIR MUHAMMAD KHOKHAR, J.---The petitioner seeks leave to appeal against impugned judgment, dated 8-4-2003 passed by the Lahore High Court, Lahore whereby Criminal Miscellaneous No, 1626/B of 2003 for grant of bail was dismissed.
2. A case F.I.R. No, 108 of 2002 under sections 302, 148 and 149, P.P.C. Was registered on 13-7-2002 against the petitioner and others at Police Station, Safdarabad, District Sheikhupura for the murder of Qamar Habib. The petitioner was attributed a fatal fire shot on the head of the deceased. The petitioner moved Criminal Miscellaneous No, 1626/B of 2003 for grant of bail which was dismissed by a learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court, Lahore by the impugned judgment, dated 8-4- 2003.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that as many as three successive investigations were conducted by senior police officers in which the petitioner was found innocent and was placed in Column-II of the police report under section 173, Cr.P.C. However, the petitioner was challaned under sections 337-H(H), 148 and 149, P.P.C. It was further argued that the case against the petitioner called for further inquiry in view of the opinion of the police and for the reason that cognizance had not been taken by the trial Court on the private complaints.
4. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner at length. It appears that in addition to the First Information Report, the statements of the eye-witnesses were recorded by the police under section 161, Cr.P.C. Who implicated the petitioner as a principal accused of the offence. The submissions made by the learned counsel require deeper appreciation of the prosecution case which exercise is not ordinarily undertaken by this Court. The Lahore High Court declined to grant the bail to the petitioner after going through the statements of the witnesses recorded under section 161, Cr.P.C. And the other material to which no exception could be taken. In the circumstances, the discretion exercised by the High Court cannot be said to be arbitrary. This is not a fit case for grant of leave to appeal.
5. For the foregoing reasons, we do not find any merit in this petition which is hereby dismissed and the leave to appeal is refused accordingly.
Cited by 1 case
- ALI SHER and others vs The STATE 2016 P Cr. L J 627