Pakistan Case Law
1979 SCMR 90

RAIS KHAN vs SAID HANIF AND Another

⭐ Prefer in Google
Citation1979 SCMR 90
CourtSupreme Court of Pakistan
Case No.Criminal Miscellaneous No. 473 of 1978 Petition for Special Leave to Appeal
Date1978-09-27
Judge(s)Dorab Patel, Muhammad Haleem and G. Safdar Shah
Authored byMuhammad Haleem
ResultPetition dismissed
AI Summary — generated from this judgment; read the full text below and verify before relying on it.

This petition for leave to appeal arose from an order of the Peshawar High Court cancelling the post-arrest bail granted to the petitioner. The petitioner, along with co-accused, was charged in a dying declaration and ocular evidence for a incident involving fatal gunshot injuries resulting in three deaths. Following the incident, the petitioner absconded for nearly four years while a co-accused was tried and acquitted. After surrendering, the Sessions Judge granted bail to the petitioner on the ground of further inquiry due to the co-accused's acquittal. However, the High Court cancelled the bail, holding that the acquittal of a co-accused was not a valid ground for bail given the direct mention in the dying declaration, ocular evidence, and prolonged abscondence. The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision, finding no impropriety in the order cancelling bail and dismissing the petition.

Questions settled in this judgment
  • Whether the acquittal of a co-accused serves as a valid ground to grant bail to an absconding accused directly named in a dying declaration and ocular evidence?
  • Whether prolonged abscondence is a relevant factor when considering the cancellation of bail granted to an accused charged with murder?
  • Whether the High Court properly exercises its jurisdiction in cancelling bail granted on the ground of further inquiry when strong ocular and dying declaration evidence exists against the accused?
cancellation of bailpost-arrest baildying declarationabscondenceacquittal of co-accusedocular evidencefurther inquiry

ORDER

1. MUHAMMAD HALEEM, J.-Deceased Imran charged his father Dolas Khan his three paternal uncles, Rais Khan, the petitioner herein, Misal Khan and Jamil for having fired at him and his maternal relations, Zarif Khan, Tai Hanif, Muhammad Hanif, Mukhtar and Samar Gul on 12th of October 1974, at Degarwela outside the mosque to avenge the grievance resulting from the refusal of Imran to reside with Dolas Khan who had also detained his wife. His statement was recorded in the hospital as he was critically injured and later succumbed to his injuries. Two other persons namely, Zarif Khan and Taj Hanif also expired as a result of gunshot injuries received by them. Misal Khan lodged the counter report at 8 p.m. The same day at Police Station, Saddar Kohat in which he accused Tai Hanif, Said Hanif and Malik Jumma Khan for having fired at him while he was returning from his field alongwith the petitioner. And as he sustained gunshot injuries he also died later.

2. The petitioner and Jamil Khan absconded and Dolas Khan was alone tried but acquitted by the trial Court on 8th of November 1975. The State appeal against his acquittal failed and was dismissed by the Peshawar High Court on 30th of January 1978, as it held that the conclusion of the trial Court in not accepting the ipse dixit of Hanif and the dying declaration of Imran was not assailable.

3. The petitioner surrendered after the dismissal of the acquittal appeal having remained four years in ascendance and applied for bail which was allowed by the Sessions Judge, Kohat, by order dated 11th of June 1978, principally on the ground that there was scope for further inquiry in view of the acquittal of Dolas Khan, the co-accused.

4. The first respondent, thereupon, applied in the High Court for the, cancellation of his bail and by order dated 24th of July 1978, his bail was cancelled as it was of the opinion that the acquittal of the co-accused was not a valid reason to allow him bail considering that he was charged in the dying declaration of. Imran; that he had absconded for many years; an-- lastly, that there was ocular evidence implicating him.

5. Accordingly, we see no impropriety in the order and dismiss the petition.

Cited by 12 cases

For educational and research use only — not legal advice. Verify against the official report before relying on it. See our Disclaimer.