Pakistan Case Law
1979 PLD Peshawar 16

SARDAR vs THE STATE Petitioner

⭐ Prefer in Google
Citation1979 PLD Peshawar 16
CourtPeshawar High Court
Case No.Criminal Miscellaneous No. 853 of 1978
Date1978-10-31
Judge(s)Syed Usman Ali Shah
ResultApplication rejected
AI Summary — generated from this judgment; read the full text below and verify before relying on it.

This matter arose from a post-arrest bail application filed by an accused charged under Sections 302, 148, and 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, following the rejection of his bail plea by the Sessions Judge. The primary contention advanced by the petitioner was that his co-accused had been acquitted on the same prosecution evidence, which, according to the petitioner, exonerated him from the murder charge. The core legal question was whether the acquittal of co-accused in a separate trial based on the same evidence entitles a absconding co-accused to bail as a matter of right. The Peshawar High Court rejected the application, holding that the trial of the petitioner must be conducted independently of the previous trial. The court emphasized that accepting the petitioner's argument would render the examination of witnesses in his trial a mere formality. Furthermore, the court noted that the petitioner had remained an outlaw for eight years, disentitling him to bail, while directing that his trial be held expeditiously.

Questions settled in this judgment
  • Can evidence disbelieved in a trial resulting in the acquittal of co-accused be automatically relied upon to grant bail to an absconding co-accused in a separate trial?
  • Does prolonged abscondance of an accused operate as a ground to refuse bail in a murder case?
  • Whether the trial of a newly arrested absconder must be conducted independently of the earlier trial of his co-accused?
Laws & provisions referred
  • Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
  • Section 148, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
  • Section 149, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
post-arrest bailacquittal of co-accusedabscondanceindependent trialmurderoutlawappreciation of evidence

1. The accused/petitioner is charged under section 302/148/149, P. P. C. His application to secure bail has failed before the learned Sessions Judge and hence this application.

2. The only and one ground urged by the learned counsel in support of this application is that the, co- accused, namely, Sabz Ali and Muhammad Sharif, of the accused/petitioner in this case have been acquitted by the learned Sessions Judge and since the same evidence has been disbelieved in the case of acquitted accused, it according to the learned counsel also exonerates the accused/petitioner from the charge of murder. The learned Sessions Judge has already considered this contention and he repelled it. The trial of the accused/petitioner will be held independently of the previous trial in which the co-accused of the petitioner were acquitted. If, therefore, the contention of the learned counsel is accepted, it will mean that the witnesses in the case will be examined as a matter of formality or for that matter there would be no need to examine them, as the same evidence given by them in the a trial of the acquitted accused can be taken into consideration which is not permissible in law. The accused/petitioner remained outlaw after the: occurrence for about eight years and thus in the circumstances of the case he is not entitled to bail.

3. This bail application is, therefore, rejected. It is directed, however that the trial of the accused/petitioner be held as expeditiously as possible.

Cited by 19 cases

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