MEHMOOD SHAH vs NOOR ZADA and another
This matter concerns a petition for post-arrest bail filed by the accused, Mehmood Shah, in a criminal case involving charges under sections 302, 324, 148, and 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code, 1860, arising from a double murder incident. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to bail based on arguments of doubtful presence, lack of independent witnesses, and the claim that the case required further inquiry. The prosecution contended that the petitioner was directly charged in a daylight occurrence with a specific role of firing, supported by medical evidence. The Court held that at the bail stage, it must perform a tentative assessment of facts without conducting a detailed scrutiny that might prejudice the trial. Finding that the direct charge, the specific role attributed to the petitioner in a daylight incident, and the medical evidence prima facie connected the accused to the offence, the Court dismissed the bail petition. The key principle established is that where a prima facie case exists, bail should not be granted.
- What is the scope of judicial scrutiny at the bail stage regarding the assessment of facts?
- Does a direct charge with a specific role in a daylight occurrence constitute sufficient grounds to deny post-arrest bail?
- Can a bail petition be granted when the prosecution establishes a prima facie connection between the accused and the offence?
- Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 324, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 148, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 149, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
YAHYA AFRIDI, J.---Mehmood Shah seeks his post arrest bail in case F.I.R. No.713 dated 20-5-2010 for offences under sections 302,324,148 and 149 Pakistan Penal Code, 1860 ("P.P.C."), registered in Police Station, Kalu Khan, Swabi ("F.I.R.").
2. . The prosecution's case as narrated in the F.I.R. Is that the complainant Noor Zada brought the dead bodies of Bahadur Khan and Sher Hassan to the Police Station, Kalu Khan and reported that he along with his deceased cousins, Darvesh and two others after attending a funeral in village Surkhabi Kass Banda were returning in a bus and on deboarding from the said bus at 12-00 noon near Bunir Rustam road, the accused Mehmood Shah along with nine others were waiting duly armed. On the command of others, the present accused along with three others started firing with the intent to commit `Qatl-e-amd'. As a result of the said firing, Bahadur Khan and Sher Hassan received injuries and died on the spot. The motive for the offence was stated to be blood feud enmity between the two parties, wherein the relatives of the complainant were charged for committing `Qatl-e-amd' of Hukam Khan son of Bahadur Sher.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently argued that the petitioner is not a previous convict; that there are no independent witnesses; a compromise has been earlier effected, whereby four co-accused nominated in the F.I.R. Have been granted bail; that as the story of the complainant was a concocted story, the presence of the petitioner in the manner and the role attributed to him was thus very doubtful; that no empties have been recovered from the spot; and that the motive is only to intimidate and involve the present petitioner in the present case as he was a witness in an earlier criminal case registered as 'Mad' 17 dated 16-5-2010. Hence, the case of the present petitioner was a case of "further inquiry" and thus pleaded for his post-arrest bail.
4. The learned counsel for the State on the other hand rigorously disputed the claim of the petitioner for the grant of post-arrest bail contending that the petitioner was only arrested when he was brought in an injured condition in another case on 21-6-2010 and that the petitioner was directly charged in a daylight occurrence and a specific role of firing was attributed to the petitioner.
5. The learned counsel for the complainant adopted the arguments of the State counsel and contended in addition that the recoveries of empties were duly recorded in the recovery memo, and that the medical evidence also supported the prosecution evidence.
6. This court, at bail stage, has to render a tentative assessment of the facts, without indulging in detail scrutiny so as to prejudice the case of the parties during the trial. Suffice it to state that the number of entry wounds on the two deceased, the petitioner being charged directly and with a specific role in a daylight occurrence prima facie reasonably connects the petitioner with the offence stated in the F.I.R. This being the prima facie case set up by the prosecution, which would have to be proved and be tested during the trial of the petitioner.
7. In view of the above, this Court is not inclined to allow the present petition. Hence, the same is dismissed.