ABDUL HALEEM SHABRANI vs THE STATE
This matter concerns a post-arrest bail application filed by the applicant, Abdul Haleem Shabrani, who is charged in a criminal case involving murder, abduction, and house trespass. The core legal question was whether the applicant was entitled to bail despite being named in the F.I.R. with specific allegations of active participation in the murder of a fifteen-year-old boy. The Court held that the applicant was not entitled to bail, as the prosecution established a prima facie case connecting the applicant to the offence. The Court noted that the applicant was assigned an active role in the firing, which resulted in the victim sustaining twenty firearm injuries, and that this ocular evidence was corroborated by medical reports and the recovery of thirty-two spent cartridges from the crime scene. The key principle laid down is that where there is sufficient prima facie evidence linking an accused to a heinous crime, particularly involving multiple injuries and corroborating forensic evidence, the concession of bail is not warranted at the pre-trial stage, as the court's assessment at this juncture remains tentative.
- Is an accused entitled to bail when the F.I.R. assigns an active role in a murder involving multiple firearm injuries?
- Does the presence of corroborating medical evidence and forensic recovery of spent cartridges constitute sufficient grounds to deny bail in a murder case?
- Can a court grant bail when there is prima facie evidence connecting the accused to the offence charged?
- Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 364, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 458, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 337-H(2), Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 148, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 149, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 114, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
' KHADIM HUSSAIN M. SHAIKH, J.---The applicant Abdul Haleem Shabrani has sought bail in Crime No,6 of 2008 of Police Station, Warah, for offence under sections 302, 364, 458, 337-H(2), 148, 149 and 114 P.P.C., after his bail plea advanced before the learned trial Court that is to say learned Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Kamber was declined vide order dated 23-6-2008.
2. The allegation against the present applicant is that in the background of previous enmity, on 8- 1-2008, at 1900 hours the present applicant Haleem along with four others, named in the F.I.R. All duly armed with Kalashnikovs entered into the house of complainant and overpowered the complainant and his two brothers namely, Madad Ali and Manthar, his son Mehran aged of 15/16 years, who were having meals. Out of the accused, it was co-accused Mour, who instigated other accused saying that previously they had killed his father Ghulam Mustafa, therefore, abduct mehran for killing him, on which all the accused by dragging complainant's son Mehran abducted away him. Then the complainant party with torches went behind the accused by beseeching them to leave Mehran. The accused made aerial firing to scare the complainant party. Then they stopped outside the village near the land of Khair Muhammad Tunio, where on the instigation of co-accused Mour, all other accused made straight firing from Kalashnikovs at complainant's son Mehran which hit him, who raising screams fell down and accused escaped the scene. The complainant party saw that Mehran had died, receiving firearm injuries on various parts of his body. Leaving the above P. Ws. To look after the corpse, the complainant rushed to his nekmard Muhammad Yousif Shabrani, who was away to Karachi and in the morning he reached, on whose advice the complainant appeared P.S. Warah and lodged his report to the above effect.
3. After investigation the applicant was sent up to stand his trial.
4. Learned advocate for the applicant has contended that the applicant is innocent and he has been falsely implicated due to enmity, that the case against the applicant is concocted, that there is delay of 15-hours in lodging the F.I.R., that there are general allegations against all the accused including applicant of causing injuries to deceased Mehran and that his vicarious liability is yet to be determined during the trial, therefore, per him, the applicant is entitled to be enlarged on bail.
5. The learned State counsel opposes the grant of bail to the applicant, contending that the applicant along with co-accused was assigned role of committing murder of a young boy namely, Mehran aged of 15/16 years by causing him firearm injuries with kalashnikovs, and that there were in all 20-firearm injuries on different parts of the body deceased Mehran, that 32 empties of 7.62 bore were secured from place of vardat, and that the eye-witnesses have also supported the prosecution case, therefore, the applicant is not entitled to the concession of bail.
6. I have carefully considered the arguments addressed by the counsel for the parties and have gone through the material placed before the Court with the assistance of learned State counsel. I find that the name of the applicant transpires in the F.I.R. With active role of causing firearm injuries by finding from his Kalashnikov upon deceased Mehran, who allegedly sustained 20-injuries at the hands of accused including the applicant Abdul Haleem resulting into his death the medical evidence also corroborates the ocular evidence, 32-empties of 7.62-bore (kalashnikov) were allegedly secured from the place of vardat and thus there is prima facie sufficient evidence against applicant Abdul Haleem to connect him with the above offences.
7. In view of what has been discussed above I am of the considered opinion that applicant has failed to make out his case for grant of bail, therefore, this bail application was dismissed by short order, dated 26-5-2009, and these are the reasons for the same.
8. The observations made hereinabove are tentative in nature for the purpose of only disposal of bail application; the same shall not influence the mind of the learned trial Court while deciding the case.