NABI BUX vs THE STATE
This bail application arose from an F.I.R. registered for murder, where the applicant sought post-arrest bail. The applicant contended that the allegations were general, the F.I.R. was motivated by previous enmity, and there were discrepancies between the F.I.R. timing, the post-mortem report, and the Investigating Officer's visit to the crime scene. The State opposed the application, highlighting the recovery of a weapon from the applicant and forensic evidence matching the injuries on the deceased. The core legal question was whether the applicant was entitled to bail given the evidence and the alleged procedural discrepancies. The Court held that the discrepancies regarding the F.I.R. number in the post-mortem report and the timing of the police visit were insufficient to shake the prosecution's case at the bail stage. The Court affirmed that previous enmity is a double-edged sword that can support either the prosecution or the defense. Finding that the recovery of the weapon and the forensic evidence prima facie connected the applicant to the crime, the Court dismissed the bail application.
- Does the mention of an F.I.R. number in a post-mortem report, if added after the report's initial drafting, invalidate the prosecution's case at the bail stage?
- How should a court treat the argument of previous enmity in a criminal case when considering a bail application?
- Is the recovery of a weapon and forensic evidence sufficient to establish a prima facie case for the purpose of refusing bail?
ORDER
1. ' SHAHID ANWAR BAJWA, J.--F.I.R. No,192 of 2010 was recorded at Police Station Kambef on 17-6-2010.
2. Complainant was one Muhammad. Peeral. He stated that about 25/26 years ago one Ghulam Haider son of Sarang had been killed by thieves but family of the deceased suspected brother of the complainant Nawab Khan Mugheri. He stated that on the day of incident, he and his. Brother, deceased Gulzar Ali came to Kamber on motorcycle and on the way he met with three relatives.
3. While they were there, he saw four persons including the present applicant all armed with T.T pistols, coming towards them. Proverbial hakal was given. Co-accused Khadim fired upon Gulzar which hit him on his cheek near left ear, and the present applicant as well as two other co-accused also fired upon Gulzar Ali and he fell down while raising cries. The accused persons after resorting to ariel firing fled away. Gulzar was found dead.
4. ' Learned counsel, for the applicant submitted that there are only general allegations with no specific role assigned to the applicant. He further submitted that in the F.I.R. It is alleged that incident took place at 0845 hours and the F.I.R. Was lodged at 0915 hours but in the postmortem report it is stated that dead body was received at 0850 hours and the F.I.R. Number is written in the postmortem report. Learned counsel next submitted that I.O. Visited place of wardat at 3-35 p.m.
5. And stated that dead body was lying at the place of wardat. Learned counsel lastly contended that there is previous enmity between the parties and this F.I.R. Has been lodged being motivated by previous enmity.
6. ' Learned State Counsel opposed the grant of bail. He submitted that there are four injuries on the body of the deceased; 3 entry wounds and one exit wound. He further submitted that from the scene of crime four empties were recovered. He lastly argued that a pistol has also been recovered from the present applicant.
7. I have considered submission made by the learned counsel and have also gone through the record. Contention of the learned counsel for the applicant that there are general allegations and no specific role is assigned to the present applicant .In F.I.R. Does not appear to be correct because in the F.I.R. It is clearly stated that the applicant fired on the deceased. As far as mentioning of F.I.R.
8. Number in postmortem report and statement of the I.O. That he visited the place of wardat at 3-35 p.m. And dead body was lying there are concerned, the first appears to be a simple human error.
9. Probably the postmortem report was written after postmortem had been performed and by that time F.I.R. Number was available and therefore, it was written in postmortem report. As far as statement of I.O. That he found dead body lying at the place of wardat is concerned, it appears to be a classic instance of "efficiency" of the police. Then do not appear to shake in material terms case of prosecution. Lastly, learned counsel referred to the previous enmity. Now previous enmity is always a doubled edged sword which cuts both ways. It can be argued that the F.I.R. Was motivated by the previous enmity and it can also be argued with equal vehemence that murder was motivated by previous enmity therefore, existence of previous enmity would cut either way.
10. ' Learned State Counsel has rightly contended that four empties have been recovered from the spot and there are three injuries on the dead body of the deceased. He has further rightly contended that a pistol has been recovered at the pointation of the complainant. All these in my opinion are sufficient to prima facie connect the present applicant with the offence alleged against him. Consequently, this bail application is dismissed.
11. ' Needless to observe that the trial Court while considering guilt or innocence of the present applicant shall not be, in any manner whatsoever; influenced by any of the observations made above.