The STATE vs SALAHUDDIN
This matter concerns a criminal revision petition filed by the State seeking the cancellation of bail granted to the respondent by the Sessions Judge, Astore, in connection with FIR No. 28/2015 and FIR No. 29/2015. The core legal question was whether the trial court exercised its discretion correctly in granting bail to an accused directly charged with serious offences, despite noting that the accused was not entitled to leniency. The Gilgit Baltistan Chief Court held that the trial court's order was erroneous. The Court found that the prosecution provided sufficient prima facie evidence, including the presence of an impartial magistrate at the scene, connecting the respondent to the alleged offences under sections 337 and 324 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The Court emphasized that at the bail stage, the primary duty is to determine if prima facie evidence exists linking the accused to the crime. Consequently, the Court allowed the petition and cancelled the bail, ruling that the initial grant of relief was unjustified given the direct involvement of the accused in the occurrence.
- Does the presence of an impartial magistrate at the scene of an occurrence constitute sufficient prima facie evidence for the purpose of bail adjudication?
- Can a court cancel bail if the trial court granted it despite observing that the accused was not entitled to leniency?
- What is the scope of a court's inquiry at the bail stage regarding the connection of an accused to an alleged offence?
- Section 337, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 324, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 13, Arms Ordinance 1965
ORDER
' MUHAMMAD ALAM, J.---This is a petition for cancellation of bail facility, granted to respondent, through order dated 05-12-2015, of the learned Sessions Judge Astore.
2. The circumstances of the case described in FIR No,28/2015 of Police Station Astore are that, the FIR lodger, who is a magistrate, went to the scene of occurrence on reports of unlawful assembly and riots by the respondent/accused party and opposite party of the respondent. Both the parties mentioned in the FIR blocked a path and were quarrelling for the same. The FIR lodger, accompanied by police, attempted to separate the rioting parties, and in the meantime, respondent injured a policeman and also opened fires on Mr. Shahid Aman of the opposite party of the respondent. Respondent moved a bail petition before the trial court, who granted the same through order dated 05-12-2015 on Cr. Misc. No,21/2015. Police concerned has chalked FIR No, 29/2015 also, whereby, alleged that respondent committed the offence of section 13 of the Arms Ordinance. Learned trial court granted bail facility to the respondent in connection with the offences mentioned in both the said FIRS.
3. I have heard learned Deputy Advocate General and learned counsel for respondent. Learned Deputy Advocate General and counsel for respondent agreed to advance arguments, although the case was not fixed for the same.. Learned Deputy Advocate General argued that the FIR has been chalked promptly and the. FIR lodger is an independent person. Respondent has been nominated in the FIR for the occurrence and the learned trial court has passed order dated 05-12-2015 on mere conjunctures. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent argued that respondent is a juvenile and the order dated 05-12-2015 of the trial court is correct in all respects.
4. I have thoughtfully considered arguments of the learned counsel for parties. Although the documents show that respondent is a minor but I have examined the respondent, present in the Court and by appearance the respondent is a quite mature person. At this stage of the case, from tentative assessm ent of the prosecution evidence, it is evident that the presence of FIR lodger, who is a magistrate, on the scene of occurrence cannot be disputed. The FIR lodger is an impartial person also, unless and until his evidence is shattered, in any way at the stage of cross- examination, Contents of FIR clearly show that respondent is directly charged for the offences of sections 337 and 324, P.P.C. I have gone through order dated 05-12-2015 of the trial court, whereby, the learned trial court has granted bail facility to respondent in spite of holding that respondent is not entitled to any leniency. So, in my opinion, grant of pail facility to respondent is wrong as, at this stage of the case, there is sufficient prima facie evidence, very clearly showing direct involvement of the respondent in commission of the occurrence. At this stage of the case, a court is supposed to see whether prima facie evidence exists or not connecting respondent/accused with the occurrence.
5. Bail facility granted to respondent through order dated 05-12-2015 of the court of Sessions Judge Astore, stands cancelled. Petition is allowed. This file be consigned to record.