SOOMAR vs THE STATE
This matter comes before the Sindh High Court through a bail application filed by the applicant seeking post-arrest bail in Crime No. 58 of 2006 registered at Police Station Taluka under sections 302, 337-H(2), 506/2, 148, 149, 114 and 504 of the Pakistan Penal Code. The core legal question concerns whether the applicant is entitled to the concession of post-arrest bail given the specific role assigned in the FIR and the medical evidence. The court held that the applicant is nominated in the FIR with a specific role of making a straight rifle shot at the deceased, resulting in his death, and that the medical evidence corroborates the ocular account regarding the firearm injury. The court dismissed the bail application, holding that only a tentative assessment of the material is permissible at the bail stage and deeper appreciation of evidence is to be decided at trial. The key principle laid down is that where an accused is specifically nominated for a fatal firearm injury supported by medical evidence, and only tentative assessment is undertaken at the bail stage, no case for bail is made out.
- Whether an accused nominated in the FIR with a specific role of firing at the deceased is entitled to post-arrest bail?
- Does a conflict between ocular evidence mentioning a rifle and medical evidence recovering a pellet warrant the grant of bail at the preliminary stage?
- What is the scope of appreciation of evidence at the bail stage in a criminal matter?
- Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code
- Section 337-H(2), Pakistan Penal Code
- Section 506/2, Pakistan Penal Code
- Section 148, Pakistan Penal Code
- Section 149, Pakistan Penal Code
- Section 114, Pakistan Penal Code
- Section 504, Pakistan Penal Code
ORDER
1. NADEEM AZHAR SIDDIQUI, J.---Through this application, applicant seeks bail in case vide Crime No, 58 of 2006, Police Station Taluka, under sections 302, 337-H(2), 506/2, 148, 149, 114 and 504, P.P.C.
2. The allegation against applicant as per F.I.R lodged by complainant Arab Ali on 3-7-2006, with Police Station Taluka, is that he on the instigation of co-accused Shahnawaz made straight rifle shot at Imam Bux, the brother of complainant, who was removed to hospital, where he succumbed to injuries. The motive for the offence is said to be the dispute between parties over the landed property.
3. The learned trial Court declined bail plea of the applicant mainly on the ground that he is nominated in the F.I.R. with specific role of causing the murder of deceased Imam Bux, therefore he is not entitled for concession of bail.
4. Learned counsel for the applicant mainly contended that there are counter cases between the parties, as the case vide F.I.R No,59 of 2006 was registered by one Mst. Arbelli from the side of applicant/, accused with same Police station. He has further contended that there is also conflict between ocular and medical evidence, as according to F.I.R the accused made rifle, shot at deceased, while postmortem report of deceased shows that a pellet was recovered from his dead body during postmortem examination.
5. Mr. Nisar Ahmed Abro, learned counsel for complainant and Mr. Mushtaq Ahmed Abbasi, learned Asstt. A.-G. have 'vehemently opposed this bail application, on the ground the applicant has been assigned specific role of making rifle shot at deceased, which resulted into his death and he is the only person responsible for causing murder of deceased.
6. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
7. The allegation against the applicant is of straight firing upon deceased Imam Bux with intention to kill, which hit his left side belly. The medical evidence is in support of ocular evidence and it is confirmed from medical report that the death was caused due to injury caused by discharge of firearm. The question whether the firing was done by a shot gun or rifle is to be decided at trial. At bail stage only tentative assessm ent of the material available on record is to be made and deeper appreciation of evidence is not permissible.
8. In view of the above no case of bail is made out.
9. The application was dismissed vide short order dated 4-4-2008, and the above are the reasons for the same.