MUHAMMAD ASGHAR vs THE STATE
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against an order of the Lahore High Court, which rejected the petitioner's application for post-arrest bail in a murder case. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to bail despite being implicated by the deceased's mother and witnesses, and considering his conduct of remaining at large for over nine months following the cancellation of his previous bail. The Supreme Court held that the petitioner's conduct was not above board, noting that he had initially registered an F.I.R. implicating seven other persons, while subsequent investigations and statements from witnesses implicated him directly. The Court found no illegality in the High Court's order rejecting bail, emphasizing that the petitioner's history of abscondence after the cancellation of his earlier bail and the prima facie evidence against him justified the refusal of relief. Consequently, the Court dismissed the petition and declined to grant leave to appeal, affirming that the petitioner's conduct and the evidentiary record did not warrant interference with the lower court's decision.
- Does the conduct of an accused in remaining at large after the cancellation of bail disentitle them to the grant of fresh bail?
- Can a court refuse bail when the accused is prima facie implicated in a murder case based on witness statements and investigation findings?
- Is the Supreme Court justified in declining leave to appeal where the High Court has exercised its discretion to cancel or refuse bail based on the accused's conduct?
- Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 109, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 148, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 149, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 161, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
' TANVIR AHMED KHAN, J.---Leave to appeal is sought against the order, dated 2-6-2003 whereby a learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court, Lahore, rejected the bail application filed by the petitioner.
2. Facts briefly are that the petitioner himself got registered F.I.R. No,326 on 21-5-2000 at Police Station, Chunian, under sections 302, 109, 148 and 149, P.P.C. For the murder of Muhammad Rafiq, implicating seven other persons. However, the stance taken by the petitioner was controverted by the mother of the deceased namely Mst. Safiya Bibi, putting all blame on him, as Siddique and Zafar, P.Ws. In their statements recorded under section 161, Cr.P.C. Implicated the petitioner. On coming to know about this aspect, she moved a formal application and succeeded in getting her version recorded. Thereupon, the petitioner was taken into custody in October 2000. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kasur, granted him bail through order, dated 3-4-2001. However, the said order was recalled by the learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court, Lahore, on 3-8-2001.
He surrendered after passage of more than nine months and again applied for post-arrest bail, which has been dismissed through the impugned order. Hence, this petition for leave to appeal.
3. We have considered the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as of the learned Law Officer and have gone through the documents appended with this petition. It is reflected from the perusal thereof that initially the petitioner succeeded in getting recorded F.I.R.
Implicating seven other persons for the murder of Muhammad Rafique. As already stated, the mother of the deceased took different version and straightaway implicated the petitioner, in view of the statements of Siddique and Zafar P.Ws. It is further reflected from the record that he has been found implicated and has been placed in Column No,3. The record shows that the mother of the deceased has also filed a complaint and the evidence of quite number of witnesses had already been recorded. Prima facie conduct of the petitioner is not above board as he got recorded F.I.R. And implicating seven other persons and thereafter, remaining at large after cancellation of his bail by the High Court on 3-8-2001 till 20-5-2002. In these circumstances, we are of the view that no illegality has been committed by the learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court, Lahore, and warranting interference in the impugned order.
4. Resultantly, for what has been stated above, the instant petition has no force, which is accordingly dismissed. Leave to appeal is declined.