BASIF ALI vs The STATE
This matter concerns a post-arrest bail application filed by the applicant, Asif Ali, challenging an order of the Additional Sessions Judge, Shaheed Benazirabad, which dismissed his bail plea regarding a double murder case. The applicant was charged under sections 302, 311, 147, 148, and 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for the murders of two individuals. The core legal question was whether the applicant was entitled to bail given the allegations of his direct involvement and shared common object in the commission of the double murder. The applicant argued false implication and procedural irregularities regarding the registration of the FIR. The Court held that the applicant was specifically nominated in the FIR with a direct role in the firing, and there was sufficient material to establish a prima facie case of vicarious liability and common object. Consequently, the Court dismissed the bail application, affirming that deeper appreciation of evidence is not permissible at the bail stage and that the applicant failed to demonstrate grounds for relief in a capital offence case.
- Is a deeper appreciation of evidence permissible at the stage of deciding a post-arrest bail application?
- Does the specific nomination of an accused in an FIR with a role in a double murder preclude the grant of bail?
- Can an accused charged with offences carrying capital punishment be granted bail when there is no material to suggest their innocence at the tentative stage?
- Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 311, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 147, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 148, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 149, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 154, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
' HASAN FEROZ, J.---The applicant Asif Ali has impugned the order dated 21-1-2013 passed by the learned IInd Additional Sessions Judge, Shaheed Benazirabad in Criminal Bail Application No, Nil of 2013 in Sessions Case No,626 of 2013 by filing this bail application whereby his post arrest bail has been dismissed in Crime No, 170/2013 registered at Police Station Kazi Ahmed for the offences under section 302, 311, 147, 148, 149, P.P.C.
2. At the date, time and place as stated by the prosecution the applicant and his co-accused had resorted to firing with their respective weapons on the deceased Mst. Sataran, who died on the spot, and in the meantime also accused Sikander, Hidayatulla and Manthar being armed with their respective weapons came out of their houses and while making firing upon Mst. Umedan alias Pohri committed her murder.
3. Learned counsel for the applicant contended the applicant is innocent and has not committed alleged offence and has been falsely implicated in the case, as according to him, the police has conducted preliminary investigation before lodging the F.I.R. Which is clear violation of mandatory provisions of section 154, Cr.P.C. Which makes the case of applicant to be one of further inquiry; and that no overt act has been attributed to the present applicant and the allegations are general in nature therefore, the applicant is entitled to the grant of bail. In support of his contention learned counsel relied upon the cases reported as 2010 M LD 1114 and 2004 YLR 2434.
4. Conversely, learned Deputy Prosecutor General Sindh has vehemently opposed the grant of bail on the ground that this is a case of double murder and the applicant is vicariously liable for those murders, therefore, he is not entitled to the grant of bail.
5. Heard learned counsel for the applicant as well as learned Additional Prosecutor General Sindh and perused the record.
6. I have in my consideration that the applicant has been nominated in the F.I.R. With specific role of causing firearm shots along with co-accused on the deceased Sataran who died on the spot and has thus shared common object for the murder of deceased and at this stage there appears no material that could depart the applicant/ accused from the alleged offence since deeper appreciation is not permissible. I have in my consideration that offence of murder carries capital punishment and there are no grounds emerging at this stage that the applicant is not involved in the commission of murder.
' The case relied upon by the learned counsel for the applicant is distinguishable on facts.
' In view of the facts and circumstances of this case, I have in my consideration that no case for bail is made out at this tentative stage, therefore, bail application is dismissed.