Pakistan Case Law
2009 SCMR 299

MITHO PITAFI vs THE STATE

⭐ Prefer in Google
Citation2009 SCMR 299
CourtSupreme Court of Pakistan
Case No.Criminal Petition No,69-K of 2008
Date2008-10-29
Judge(s)Mian Hamid Farooq, Syed Zawwar Hussain Jaffery and Sarmad Jalal Osmany
Authored bySyed Zawwar Hussain Jaffery
ResultBail granted
AI Summary — generated from this judgment; read the full text below and verify before relying on it.

This petition for leave to appeal was filed against the order of the High Court of Sindh, which had refused post-arrest bail to the petitioner in a murder case arising out of FIR No. 187 of 2000. The core legal question addressed by the Supreme Court was whether an accused person who is otherwise entitled to bail on merits can be denied bail solely on the ground of absconsion. The petitioner argued that he was not named as present at the scene in the FIR, nor was any specific role assigned to him, and that a similarly situated co-accused had already been granted bail by the trial court. The State expressed no objection to the grant of bail. Converting the petition into an appeal, the Supreme Court allowed bail, laying down the principle that mere absconsion is not an absolute bar to the grant of bail if the accused makes out a strong case for bail on merits.

Questions settled in this judgment
  • Can bail be granted on merits to an accused person who has been absconding?
  • Does mere absconsion disentitle an accused from the concession of bail if a good case on merits is made out?
post-arrest bailabsconsiongrant of bail on meritsrule of paritycriminal appealSupreme Court of Pakistan

ORDER

' SYED ZAWWAR HUSSAIN JAFFERY, J.--- The petitioner seeks leave to appeal against the order, dated 11-8-2008, passed by High Court of Sindh, Sukkur Bench, whereby the concession of bail was declined to the petitioner.

2. Brief facts of the case, leading to filing of this petition, are that the complainant namely Muhammad Murad Pitafi lodged F.I.R. No,187 Of 2000 at Police Station Mirpur Mathelo, District Ghotki, alleging therein that on the day of incident i,e, 15-11-2000 at about 12-30 there had been a matrimonial dispute between his brother, brother-in-law and his family with Chacher Pitafi and other relatives, who had threatened them of teaching a lesson. On that day, his brother Mir Hassan Pitafi, nephew Noor Muhammad Pitafi, niece Mst. Shehnaz and brother-in-law Pehiwan Pitafi were harvesting paddy in the land of Gulo Channar while the complainant was also harvesting at some distance, Chacher, Ghouso alias Ghous Bux, Mero Pitafi, armed with kalashnikovs, came there, abused and fired upon Mir Hassan, Noor Muhammad, Mst. Mehnaz and Pehlawan with intention to commit murder. On hue and cry, complainant and other villagers were attracted who also witnessed the occurrence. After that all the accused ran away. The complainant and other witnesses saw that Mir Hassan, Noor Muhammad and Mst. Mehnaz had died due to fire-arm injuries. Pehlawan also sustained injuries. Thereafter, the complainant with the help of other witnesses, carried the dead bodies and the injured to hospital. Thereafter, he lodged a report in the concerned police station.

3. During the course of investigation, the case was challaned which is pending adjudication before the IInd Additional Sessions Judge, Ghotki. After having rejected bail by the IInd Additional Sessions Judge, the petitioner approached the learned High Court for bail but remained unsuccessful.

Hence this petition for leave to appeal.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner is innocent and has falsely been implicated in the case by the complainant due to matrimonial dispute. As per F.I.R., the petitioner was not shown present at the time of occurrence and only accused Chacher, Gous Bux and Mero Pitafi were nominated as main accused. As per order, dated 18-2-2002, in the similar circumstances, bail has been granted by the trial Court to accused Jam Pitafi while the bail of petitioner has been declined. Therefore, the petitioner also deserves for concession of bail.

5. On the other hand, learned Prosecutor-General, appearing on behalf of State, has admitted the factual position and submits that he has no objection if the petitioner may be released on bail.

6. We have heard learned counsel for the petitioner as also the prosecutor-General, appearing on behalf of the State, and have perused the material available on record with their able assistance.

7. According to F.I.R., neither any role has been attributed to the petitioner nor his presence has been shown at the time of occurrence. Vide order, dated 18-2-2002, co-accused namely Jam Patafi has been released on bail by the learned trial Court but the concession of bail was declined to the petitioner on the ground that he was fugitive from law. Learned High Court of Sindh as well as learned trial Court has rejected the bail of petitioner on account of absconsion and not on merit. It is well-settled principle of law that bail can be granted if an accused has good case for bail on merit and mere absconsion would not come in way while granting the bail. We are, prima facie, of the view that the learned High Court has not appreciated the facts and circumstances of the case in its true perspective while declining bail to the petitioner.

8. For the foregoing reasons, this petition is converted into appeal and the same is allowed. The impugned order, passed by the High Court of Sindh, is set aside and the petitioner is directed to be released on bail subject to furnishing bail bond in the sum of Rs,2,00,000 (two lacs) and P.R. Bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of trial Court.##TE#

Cited by 74 cases

…and 24 more citing cases

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