MANZUR Alias BHOLA AND Another vs THE STATE AND Another
The petitioners sought leave to appeal against the order of the High Court canceling the bail granted to the petitioner by the Additional Sessions Judge in a case under Section 302/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The High Court had canceled the bail relying on the dying statement of the deceased. The petitioner contended that the motive was thin, prosecution witnesses were not supporting the case, and a co-accused had been falsely implicated. The Supreme Court held that the dying statement fully implicated the petitioner and it was premature at the bail stage to reject or accept the truthfulness of the dying statement, especially when no competent court had yet recorded a finding on the falsity of the implication. Consequently, the Supreme Court found no grounds to interfere with the cancellation of bail and dismissed the petition for leave to appeal, holding that reasonable grounds existed to believe the accused was connected with an offence punishable with death.
- Whether a dying statement can form the basis for canceling bail at a pre-trial stage?
- Can the opinion of an investigating officer regarding false implication override a dying statement for the purpose of granting or canceling bail?
- Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 34, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
1. ANWARUL HAQ, C. J.-The petitioner, along with one Yaqub, is facing prosecution under section 302/34, P. P. C. For the murder of two persons named Abdul Hamid and Muhammad Ashraf. The Additional Sessions Judge allowed bail to both the accused persons by his order dated the 11th of March 1976. Thereupon, the complainant moved the High Court for the cancellation of bail, which application was allowed by the High Court only as against the petitioner. He now seeks leave to appeal.
2. It is contended by Ch. Nazir Ahmad Khan learned counsel for the petitioner that the High Court having accepted for the time being the fact that the co-accused Yaqub had been falsely roped in, it should not have relied on the dying statement of the deceased for canceling the bail of the petitioner. He further submits that the motive alleged against the petitioner is rather thin, and the prosecution witnesses are apparently not supporting the case. It appears to the learned counsel that in these circumstances the High Court was not at all justified in canceling the bail.
3. We find that whatever the state of the other evidence available in the case, at least the dying statement made by deceased Abdul Hamid fully implicates the petitioner and it is premature for us to say whether the said statement should be accepted or not against the petitioner or against both the accused. No competent Court has yet recorded any finding that the deceased had falsely implicated Yaqub, and therefore, any opinion formed by the Investigating Officer in this behalf, or any expression of view by the High Court at this juncture, cannot be used as an argument for saying that the dying statement is false as against the petitioner.
4. It would appear, therefore are no reasouable grounds for offence punishable with death or therefore, dismissed.
Cited by 2 cases
- SYED IKHLAQ HUSSAIN SHAH Versus THE STATE 1997 PCRLJ 610
- LIAQAT ALI Versus THE STATE 1994 PLD 172