MUHAMMAD YAQOOB vs THE STATE and another
The petitioner, Muhammad Yaqoob, 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, having been denied the same by the courts below. The core legal question revolved around whether the existence of a cross-case and discrepancies between the FIR and the site plan entitled the accused to post-arrest bail, and whether abscondence could be ignored. The Peshawar High Court dismissed the bail petition, holding that a cross-case alone is not sufficient to grant bail when there is direct ocular evidence prima facie connecting the accused to the crime, and that deep appreciation of evidence is impermissible at the bail stage. The court laid down the principle that the mere existence of a cross-case does not automatically warrant the grant of bail in the presence of strong incriminating material and ocular testimony.
- Whether the existence of a cross-case alone is sufficient ground for the grant of post-arrest bail?
- Can the court enter into deep appreciation of evidence at the bail stage while comparing the FIR and the site plan?
- Does direct ocular evidence implicating the accused disentitle them to bail notwithstanding a cross-case?
- Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 324, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 34, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
' ATTAULLAH KHAN, J.----Muhammad Yaqoob, accused/petitioner,involved in case No,209 dated 15- 9-2009 of Police Station Domail registered under sections 302/324/34, P.P.C. 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 F.I.R. No,210 of the same date under sections 324/34, P.P.C. Which fact is also evident 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 admissible so as to be made basis for release of an accused on bail.
4. I have considered the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
5. A look at the F.I.R. Would reveal that it has been lodged after twenty minutes of the occurrence which took place at 1100 A 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 counsel for the petitioner tried to make the case for bail on pointing out the comparison of contents of the present F.I.R. 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.
6. 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 ward off the effect 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.
Cited by 1 case
- IFTIKHAR KHAN vs THE STATE and another 2011 P Cr. L J 1720