SOHAIL WAQAR alias SOHAILA vs The STATE and others
This petition for post-arrest bail arises from a double murder case registered under FIR No. 150 of 2013 at Police Station Housing Colony, District Sheikhupura. The petitioner sought bail after being accused of firing at the deceased, Mubashar Bhatti, alongside co-accused. The core legal question before the Supreme Court was whether the petitioner was entitled to the grant of post-arrest bail given the specific allegations and the evidentiary record. The Court dismissed the petition, holding that the petitioner was specifically nominated in the FIR with a distinct role attributed to him, and the police investigation had found him guilty. Furthermore, the Court noted the petitioner remained a fugitive from law for a significant period. Regarding the petitioner's argument concerning discrepancies between ocular and medical evidence, the Court held that such matters require deeper appreciation of evidence, which is not permissible at the bail stage. The Court affirmed that the alleged offences fall within the prohibitory clause of the relevant procedural law, thereby disentitling the petitioner to bail, and left the final determination of guilt to the trial court.
- Is a deeper appreciation of evidence permissible at the bail stage?
- Does the fact that an accused remained a fugitive from law affect the consideration of a bail petition?
- Does an offence falling within the prohibitory clause of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 automatically disentitle an accused to bail?
- Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 109, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 148, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 149, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
' MANZOOR AHMAD MALIK, J.---Petitioner seeks bail after arrest in case FIR No,150 of 2013 dated 04.05.2013, offences under sections 302, 109, 148, 149, P.P.C., registered at Police Station Housing Colony, District Sheikhupura.
2. It is a case of double murder wherein two persons namely Mubashar Bhatti (husband of complainant) and Hafiz Muzammal (brother of complainant) lost their lives. Precise allegation against petitioner, as per the FIR, is that he along with Hafiz Liaqat and Muhammad Amin alias Bhola, co-accused, fired at Mubashar Bhatti with their respective weapons, which hit Mubashar on his back, buttocks and different parts of body and he succumbed to the injuries.
3. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Law Officer at some length and perusing the available record with their assistance, we have noted that petitioner has been specifically nominated in the FIR and specific role of firing at Mubashar Bhatti (deceased) has been attributed to him. The police have found him guilty during the investigation. He remained fugitive from law for a considerable period of time. So far as the conflict between the ocular account and the medical evidence, pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner is concerned, suffice it to observe, deeper appreciation of evidence is not desirable at the bail stage. It is for the learned trial Court to determine, after recording evidence pro and contra, the guilt or otherwise of the petitioner. The offence alleged falls within the prohibitory clause of section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure, which disentitles the petitioner for grant of bail.
4. For the foregoing reasons, this petition having no merit is dismissed and leave to appeal is refused.