REHMANULLAH vs THE STATE and another
This is a criminal petition filed by Rahmanullah seeking post-arrest bail in case F.I.R. No. 88 registered under sections 302, 148, and 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code at Police Station Domel, District Bannu. The core legal question concerns whether the petitioner is entitled to bail based on contentions regarding discrepancies in the site plan, medical evidence contradictions, identification issues, and a plea of alibi. The Peshawar High Court held that the contentions raised require a deeper appreciation of evidence, which is impermissible at the bail stage, and that the petitioner was specifically nominated in a promptly lodged F.I.R. for a daylight crime, had absconded for a considerable period after the occurrence, and shared a similar role to a co-accost whose bail was earlier dismissed. Consequently, the court declined the bail petition and directed the trial court to conclude the proceedings expeditiously.
- Whether discrepancies between the site plan and medical evidence warrant the grant of post-arrest bail?
- Can a plea of alibi be evaluated in detail at the bail stage without recording evidence?
- Whether abscondence following the commission of an offense disentitles an accused to the concession of bail?
- Does the commencement of the trial serve as a ground for the refusal of bail?
- Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 148, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 149, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
' ATTAULLAH KHAN J.---Rahmanullah petitioner seeks bail in case F.I.R. No,88 dated 7-5-2009 of Police Station Domel, District Bannu, registered under sections 302/148/149, P.P.C.
2. According to the F.I.R. Lodged by Mst. Khajana Bibi, on the fateful day she along with her daughter Waheeda Bibi were going to the house of Mangley for bringing water while her husband Bahader Nawaz was going ahead of them to Bazar Domel for the purchase of household articles. Meanwhile at about 0730 hours, a white-colour Motorcar came and stopped near her husband. The car was driven by Rahmanullah accompanied by Zarwaley, Manzoor Khan, Muhammad Khan, armed with a Kalashnikov and Mst. Paylea Bibi, who came down therefrom. The identity of Bahadur Nawaz was disclosed by Mst.Payleta Bibi and then all the accused fired at him with which he was hit and died on the spot, whereafter all the accused decamped from the spot in the said motorcar. Motive for the offence was given to be previous blood feud between the parties.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that:--
(a) No empty has been recovered from point-A where the presence of the petitioner is shown, in the site plan which means that no firing was mac by him; ' The seat of injuries shown by the Doctor contradicts the contents of site plan regarding seats of injuries, i,e, on the of back of the deceased, while the injuries should have been on his front;
(b) That the presence of the accused/petitioner on the spot is doubtful keeping in view the identification made by a lady accused for the reason that all the parties were known to each other and lastly;
(c) That the accused/petitioner at the relevant time was at Peshawar and thus on the plea of alibi too, he is entitled to the concession of bail.
4. On the other hand, the learned Deputy Advocate General representing the State contended that it is a daylight occurrence, the F.I.R. Is promptly lodged and the occurrence has been seen by the eye witnesses.
5. As far as the contentions raised on behalf of the petitioner are concerned, these are such which can be agitated and scanned at trial stage and not at this bail stage, because if the same are discussed and decided, it would amount to deeper appreciation of evidence which is not permissible. It would also cause expression of opinion before trial which is not viewed with appreciation by the Apex Court.
6. The objection regarding some facts alleged in the site plan can only be determined when evidence is recorded. Similarly, the seat of injuries is again a point relating to evidence. The plea of alibi raised during arguments may be relevant, but it too could be weighed after complete evidence is recorded.
7. The record reveals that the trial has commenced though it cannot be a sole ground for refusal of bail but is a circumstance to be taken to the contrary. The accused/petitioner immediately after the occurrence decamped from the spot and he was arrested on 10-3-2010. This period has not been explained and the F.I.R. Has been promptly lodged within fifty minutes.
8. Moreover, the bail petition of Zahidullah, co-accused of the petitioner has been dismissed by this Court on 21-12-2009 and case of the accused/petitioner having the same features cannot be distinguished from his case.
9. In the circumstances discussed above, the petitioner does not deserve the concession of bail and his prayer for bail is accordingly declined. However, since the trial has commenced, the trial Court is directed to conclude the same expeditiously.