Pakistan Case Law
2011 SCMR 1619

SHAHID FAROOQ vs THE STATE and others

⭐ Prefer in Google
Citation2011 SCMR 1619
CourtSupreme Court of Pakistan
Case No.Criminal Petition No, 211-L of 2011
Date2011-06-06
Judge(s)Tassaduq Hussain Jillani, Mahmood Akhtar Shahid Siddiqui and Asif Saeed Khan Khosa
Authored byTassaduq Hussain Jillani
ResultLeave refused
AI Summary — generated from this judgment; read the full text below and verify before relying on it.

This criminal petition for leave to appeal arises from an order refusing post-arrest bail to the petitioner, who was implicated in a case registered under sections 302, 364, 324, 148, and 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 at Police Station City Toba, District Toba Tek Singh, involving a murderous assault resulting in multiple fatalities. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to bail on the grounds of not being named in the initial first information report, the rule of consistency vis-a-vis co-accused, and delay in the conclusion of the trial. The Supreme Court of Pakistan held that the petitioner's case was distinguishable from co-accused who were granted bail, as he was specifically named in the supplementary statement of an injured victim who later succumbed to his injuries, attributing a specific role of firing. The Court also noted that the trial had commenced and multiple witnesses had been examined, rendering it an unfit case for bail. The petition was accordingly dismissed, establishing principles regarding the evidentiary value of supplementary statements by deceased victims and the applicability of the rule of consistency in bail matters.

Questions settled in this judgment
  • Whether an accused not named in the initial first information report is entitled to bail when subsequently named in a supplementary statement by an injured victim?
  • Does the rule of consistency apply when the role attributed to the petitioner is distinguishable from co-accused who were granted bail?
  • Is delay in the conclusion of the trial sufficient ground for bail when the trial has commenced and witnesses have been examined?
Laws & provisions referred
  • Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
  • Section 364, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
  • Section 324, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
  • Section 148, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
  • Section 149, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
post-arrest bailmurderrule of consistencysupplementary statementdelay in trial

ORDER

' TASSADUQ HUSSAIN JILLANI, J.---Petitioner seeks bail in a case registered vide F.I.R. No, 86 dated 26-2-2009 under sections 302/ 364/324/148/149, P.P.C. At Police Station City Toba, District Toba Tek Singh.

2. The prosecution story briefly stated is that on the fateful day and night the accused named in the F.I.R. Armed with firearms, attacked the complainant party, in consequence of which, four persons lost their lives at the spot and one Adnan (injured) succumbed to the injuries and died later.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner seeks bail on the ground that petitioner is not named in the F.I.R. And that the role attributed to him is that of abetment; that the co-accused similarly placed have been allowed bail and the rule of consistency would require that he also be granted bail. He further submitted that despite a lapse of almost two years, the trial has not concluded and in fact so far not a single witness has been examined.

4. Learned counsel for the complainant assisted by learned Additional Prosecutor-General opposed the petition by submitting that petitioner was named in the supplementary statement got recorded by Adnan injured who died later, the very next day and attributed the specific role of firing at the latter. They submit that the trial has commenced and statements of nine witnesses have been recorded but they could not be cross-examined on account of non-availability of learned counsel for the accuses.

5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties at some length, we find that petitioner is specifically named by one of the victims of the assault who succumbed to the injuries and died later. His case, therefore, is distinguishable from that of the one's who have been allowed bail. We also find that as per report of the Trial Court, the trial has commenced and nine witnesses have been examined. In the afore-referred circumstances, we do not find it a fit case for bail. The petition lacking in merit is accordingly dismissed and .

Cited by 11 cases

For educational and research use only — not legal advice. Verify against the official report before relying on it. See our Disclaimer.