ZAMEER KHAN vs The STATE
This matter concerns a petition for post-arrest bail filed by an accused charged with double murder under FIR No. 01/2016. The petitioner, along with absconding co-accused, was alleged to have opened fire, resulting in the deaths of two individuals. The petitioner argued that the one-hour delay in lodging the FIR indicated fabrication and that no specific injury was attributed to him, thereby warranting further inquiry. The State opposed the bail, highlighting that the petitioner was directly charged in the FIR, eye-witnesses implicated him, and the weapon of offence was recovered from his possession, leading to a separate case under the Arms Ordinance. The Court held that at the bail stage, it is restricted to a tentative assessment of evidence. Finding that the petitioner was directly charged, placed at the scene by the site plan, and linked to the recovery of the weapon, the Court concluded that a prima facie case existed. Consequently, the Court dismissed the bail petition, ruling that the petitioner was not entitled to the concession of bail.
- Is an accused entitled to post-arrest bail when directly charged in the FIR and linked to the recovery of the weapon of offence?
- To what extent can a court assess evidence during the bail stage?
- Does a delay in lodging an FIR automatically entitle an accused to bail?
- Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 427, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 34, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 13, Arms Ordinance 1965
ORDER
MALIK HAQ NAWAZ, J.---The petitioner along with five other (absconding accused) were booked for double murder of one Sherdi Jan son of Sher Aman and Asgar Khan son of Samsar resident of Pharouri on 08-03-2016 by opening fire shots with lethal arms. The complainant Wali Khan son of Saeed Rehman lodged FIR No,01/2016 under sections 302, 427, 34, P.P.C. dated 08-03-2016 which was registered at Police Station Ghabar Tangir, District Diamer.
2. The petitioner was arrested in the instant case while the remaining accused are still at large. The petitioner applied for post arrest bail in the trial Court which was refused vide order dated 05-05- 2016 and being dissatisfied from the above order, the petitioner has come to this Court for concession of bail.
3. The learned counsel for the parties submits that there is a delay of one hour in lodging the FIR and this delay has been consumed in tailoring a false and fabricated story. The learned counsel further submitted that as evident from the contents of FIR and the statement of eye-witnesses namely Azad Khan and Abdul Hai, indiscriminate firing was opened by the assailants but no specific injury is attributed to the petitioner which makes the case as one of further enquiry.
4. On the other hand the learned Dy. Advocate General opposed the bail petition with vehemence and submitted that the petitioner is directly charged in the FIR and weapon of offence has been recovered from his possession and FIR No,02/2016 has been registered under section 13 A.O. which is an incriminatory piece of evidence. There is a prima facie case against the accused/petitioner and he is not entitled for grant of bail.
5. I have heard both the parties at length and have also gone through the available record. The petitioner is directly A charged in the FIR for opening fire shot on both the deceased who succumbed to the injuries at the spot. The presence of accused has been shown in the site plan and the eye-witnesses whose names find mention in the FIR have fully implicated the accused for commission of the offence charged against him. The weapon of offence has also been recovered from the possession of petitioner and a separate case in this regard has also been registered against the petitioner. The points raised at bar by learned counsel for the petitioner will be answered by the prosecution at the time of trial and at this stage this Court cannot travel beyond the scope of tentative assessm ent of evidence available with the prosecution. There is a prima facie case against the accused and he is not entitled for concession of bail.
6. The result of above discussion is that the petition is dismissed being meritless.