SABIR HUSSAIN vs STATE
This matter concerns a petition for post-arrest bail filed by the petitioner, Sabir Hussain, who is charged with murder and other offences under Sections 302, 452, 148, and 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The petitioner sought bail on grounds of innocence, alleged mala fides, lack of recovery, and a purported conflict between medical evidence and the ocular account regarding the firing distance. The State opposed the application, arguing that the petitioner was specifically nominated in the FIR, the offence falls within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, and that the petitioner's contentions required a deeper appreciation of evidence, which is impermissible at the bail stage. The Court held that at the bail stage, only a tentative assessment of the case is required. Finding that the petitioner was specifically nominated with a role in the crime and that the offence fell within the prohibitory clause, the Court dismissed the petition, affirming that evidentiary conflicts cannot be resolved during bail proceedings.
- Can a court resolve conflicts between medical evidence and ocular testimony at the bail stage?
- Is the specific nomination of an accused in an FIR for an offence falling under the prohibitory clause of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 a sufficient ground to deny bail?
- What is the scope of judicial inquiry at the stage of deciding a post-arrest bail application?
- Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 452, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 148, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 149, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
Sabir Hussain son of Murad petitioner seeks bail after arrest in case registered against him vide F.I.R. 754, dated 27-12-2004 for offences under Sections 302/452/ 148/149, P.P.C. at Police Station Ferozewala District Sheikhupura. Bail has been declined to the petitioner by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ferozewala, vide his order, dated 12.9.2005, hence this petition.
2. As per F.I.R. the allegation against the petitioner is that on the intervening night of 26/27-12-2004, the petitioner alongwith co-accused armed with deadly weapons had made firing as a result of which Abdul Razzaq was murdered.
3. Learned counsel for petitioner contends that the petitioner is innocent and he has been involved in the case due to mala fides of the complainant and the police; further that no recovery has been effected from the petitioner and that the medical evidence is in conflict with the ocular account made by the complainant and the P.Ws. According to the complainant the accused-petitioner fired upon the victim from the distance of 10 feet as per site-plan but medical evidence shows that there was blackening on the body of the victim meaning thereby that the firing was made from close range, adds that the petitioner is behind the bars for the last one year, therefore, he is entitled for grant of bail.
4. Conversely, bail petition has been opposed by the learned State counsel on the ground that the petitioner is nominated in the FIR. with specific role; offence for which the petitioner has been charged for falls within the prohibitory clause of Section 497, Cr.P.C., there was motive for the occurrence and that the points raised by the learned counsel for petitioner needs deeper appreciation of evidence which exercise cannot take place at the time of disposal of bail application; the Court has to decide the bail application on the available record and only tentative view of the involvement of the petitioner in the occurrence can be made while disposing of the bail application.
5. Arguments heard. Record perused. The petitioner is nominated in the F.I.R. with specific role of causing fire-arm injuries to the victim. Whether any recovery has been effected from the petitioner and medical evidence is in conflict with the ocular account made by the complainant and the P.Ws., cannot be decided at bail stage because only tentative view of the case has to be made at the time of disposal of bail application. Offence for which the petitioner has been charged falls within the prohibitory clause of Section 497, Cr.P.C. Therefore, I see no ground to release the petitioner on bail. Resultantly, this petition fails and the same is dismissed.