MUHAMMAD SAMRAN ALI vs STATE and another
This matter concerns a petition for post-arrest bail filed by the accused, Muhammad Samran Ali, in connection with FIR No. 633 of 2013, registered for offences under Sections 302, 34, 324, and 109 of the Pakistan Penal Code, 1860. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to post-arrest bail given the allegations of murder and attempted murder, his criminal history, and the evidence collected during the investigation. The Court held that the petitioner was not entitled to bail, noting that he was specifically nominated in the FIR with a direct role in causing fatal injuries to the deceased and grievous injury to an eyewitness. Furthermore, the Court observed that the petitioner had been declared guilty after investigation, incriminating material was recovered from his possession, and he was involved in another murder case. The Court emphasized that at the bail stage, only a tentative assessment of the record is required, and deeper appreciation of evidence is not warranted. Consequently, the petition was dismissed, as the petitioner failed to establish grounds for bail.
- Is a deeper appreciation of evidence warranted at the bail stage?
- Does the existence of a prior criminal case and specific nomination in the FIR constitute sufficient grounds to deny post-arrest bail?
- What is the scope of judicial review regarding evidence at the stage of considering a post-arrest bail application?
- Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 34, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 324, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 109, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
' Seeks post-arrest bail in case FIR No. 633 of 2013 dated, 26.08.2013, registered under Sections 302, 34, 324, 109 of The Pakistan Penal Code, 1860 at Police Station Gagoo District Vehari.
2. The precise allegation against the petitioner and co-accused namely Qurban A.I as narrated by the complainant of this case namely Fazal Ahmad is to the effect that they both while being armed with Kalashnikovs fired on the person of the deceased namely. Mukhtar Ahmed. The fire/burst of the petitioner hit the chest of the deceased, whereas the fire of the co-accused hit on the right side of the head of the deceased. The petitioner also made straight fire on Muhammad Akram injured, which hit him on his left eye.
3. Heard. Record perused.
4. Considering the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties, it has been noticed that the petitioner is nominated in the FIR with specific role of causing injuries on the person of deceased and injured Muhammad Akram, who lost one of his eye. Recovery has been effected from the possession of the petitioner. In addition to this, all the witnesses of the prosecution are intact and after thorough investigation by the police, the petitioner has been declared guilty. The application seeking declaration to the effect that the petitioner is a Juvenile has been dismissed by the learned trial Court vide order dated 13.05.2015, whereby the age of the petitioner is 19 year 06 months and 24-days. Furthermore, the petitioner also committed murder of co-accused namely Qurban A.I in connection with which FIR No. 504/2013 dated 28.04.2013, offences under Section 302/34 of The Pakistan Penal Code, 1860 has been registered at P. S. Saddar Checchawatni. The offence with which the petitioner is charged curtails maximum punishment. At bail stage only tentative assessm ent of record is required to be made and deeper appreciation is not warranted under the law; sufficient incriminating material is available on record to connect the petitioner with the commission of heinous crime. Therefore, while relying on the dictum laid down by the Honorable Supreme Court of Pakistan in the case of "Muhammad Faiz alias Bhoora vs. The State and another" reported as 2015 SCM R 655, the petitioner has failed to make out a case for the grant of bail on Statutory ground.
5. Pursuant to above discussion, this petition for post-arrest bail is dismissed.
6. Before parting with this order, it is, however clarified that the findings recorded supra are tentative in nature and will have no effect whatsoever upon the merit of the case in any manner.