SHABBIR HUSSAIN vs THE STATE
This matter concerns a petition for post-arrest bail filed by the accused, who was charged with murder and other offences under the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The petitioner sought bail on grounds of innocence, alleged mala fides, lack of recovery, and purported discrepancies between the medical evidence and the ocular account regarding the firing distance. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to bail despite being nominated in the F.I.R. with a specific role in a non-bailable offence falling under the prohibitory clause of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The Court held that the petitioner was not entitled to bail, reasoning that the specific allegations and the nature of the offence brought the case within the prohibitory clause of Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The Court affirmed the principle that at the bail stage, the court is limited to forming a tentative view based on the available record and cannot conduct a deeper appreciation of evidence, such as resolving conflicts between medical and ocular accounts or evaluating recovery evidence, which are matters for trial.
- Can a court resolve conflicts between medical evidence and ocular accounts at the bail stage?
- Does the mere allegation of a specific role in a murder case falling under the prohibitory clause of Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, justify the denial of bail?
- Is a deeper appreciation of evidence permissible when deciding a 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
' ABDUL SHAKOOR PARACHA, J.--- 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 along with 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 plane 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 F.I.R. 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.
Cited by 1 case
- GHIYAS UD DIN alias MOON vs The STATE and another 2016 P Cr. L J 156