MUHAMMAD YAQOB vs STATE and another
This matter comes before the Peshawar High Court through a bail application filed by the accused petitioner Muhammad Yaqoob, who sought post-arrest bail in case FIR No. 209 registered under Sections 302, 324, and 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 at Police Station Domail, after bail was refused by the lower courts. The core legal question revolves around whether the existence of a cross-case and discrepancies between the FIR and site-plan warrant the grant of post-arrest bail, and whether abscondence can be ignored in such circumstances. The court held that a cross-case alone is insufficient for granting bail when direct ocular evidence prima facie connects the accused to the crime, and that a deep appreciation of evidence is impermissible at the bail stage. Consequently, the court dismissed the bail application, laying down the principle that the presence of direct ocular testimony linking the accused to the offence overrides the plea of a cross-case at the pre-trial bail stage.
- Whether the existence of a cross-case alone is sufficient ground for the grant of post-arrest bail?
- Can a deep appreciation of evidence regarding the contents of an FIR and site-plan be undertaken at the bail stage?
- Does the presence of direct ocular evidence connecting the accused to the crime disentitle them to bail?
- Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 324, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 34, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
Muhammad Yaqoob, Accused/petitioner, involved in case FIR No, 209 dated 15/9/2009 of Police Station Domail registered under Sections 302/324/34 PPC having been refused bail by the Courts below has filed the application in hand for the same purpose.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that there is a cross-case registered by the accused party vide FIR No, 210 of the same date under Sections 324/34 PPC which fact is also evidence from the bail petition moved in this Court by the accused in that case and thus the petitioner is entitled to bail. He argued that the abscondence of the petitioner may be ignored in view thereof.
3. On the other hand, learned counsel for the complainant and State took the plea that cross-case is no ground for bail if the case is otherwise not fit for bail and that the plea of cross-version taken in the bail petition of those accused is not admission so as to be made basis for release of an accused on bail.
3. I have considered the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
4. A look at the FIR would reveal that it has been lodged after twenty minutes of the occurrence which took place at 1100 hours, wherein the petitioner is directly charged for committing the offence. The record further reveals that the there is ocular evidence which prima facie connects the petitioner with the commission of the crime. Learned A counsel for the petitioner tried to make the case for bail on pointing out the comparison of contents of the present FIR with the site-plan, but any observations made at this moment thereon would amount the deep appreciation of evidence which is not permissible at bail stage. Moreover, the cross-case alone is not sufficient for making a case for bail in presence of ocular evidence and other materials available on file.
5. The other aspect of the case that the complainant while applying for bail to this Court has taken the plea of cross-case but again in that petition the injury sustained by the victim was alleged to be self inflicted/concocted in order to word off the affect of the instant case.
Therefore, a prima facie case exists against the Accused/petitioner and, therefore, I find no substance in this application which is accordingly dismissed.