Hidayat Khan vs The State and another
This criminal petition challenged an order of the Peshawar High Court refusing bail to the petitioner in a case registered under sections 302, 404, and 201 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The petitioner was not named in the FIR. The prosecution's case relied on the recovery of a SIM card from the petitioner, the recovery of a pistol upon his pointation, a positive Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL) report, and a statement under section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The Supreme Court observed that the FSL report was potentially compromised by a significant delay between the recovery of crime scene empties and their submission to the firearm expert. Consequently, the Court held that the petitioner's involvement required further inquiry. The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, granted post-arrest bail to the petitioner subject to furnishing bail bonds, and directed the trial court to expedite the proceedings, noting that the trial court retains the authority to recall bail if the concession is misused or if the petitioner causes unnecessary delays.
- Does a significant delay in sending crime scene evidence to a forensic laboratory justify a finding of further inquiry for bail purposes?
- Can a trial court recall bail if the accused causes unnecessary delays in the trial?
- Is an accused entitled to bail when the prosecution's case rests on evidence requiring further judicial scrutiny at trial?
- Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 404, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 201, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 164, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 497(2), Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
MANZOOR AHMAD MALIK, J.---Impugned herein is the order dated 11.10.2019, whereby bail was refused to the petitioner by the learned Peshawar High Court, Peshawar in case FIR No.495 dated 17.06.2019, offence under sections 302, 404, 201, P .P.C., registered at Police Station Urmar , Peshawar .
2. We have heard learned counsel for the parties at length and have perused the available record with their assistance.
3. Admittedly , the petitioner is not named in the FIR in any context. The prosecution has based its case against the petitioner on the basis of recovery of a SIM of deceased from him, a pistol on his pointation, positive report of FSL and the statement of father of deceased namely Bacha Said recorded under section 164, Code of Criminal Procedure. So far as statement of father of deceased is concerned, he has not implicated the petitioner on the basis of any evidence, rather he stated in his statement that different steps taken by the police during the course of investigation particularly call data which showed that a call was allegedly made between deceased and the petitioner and the recovery of pistol on the pointation of the petitioner convinced him that petitioner is involved in the crime. We have also perused the report of FSL. It has been confirmed by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of State under instructions of the investigating officer present with record that empties were recovered from the spot on 17.06.2019 and the pistol recovered from the petitioner and the empties were sent to the office of firearm expert on the same day i.e. on 19.08.2019. In the circumstances, evidentiary value of these pieces of evidence shall be determined by the learned trial court after recording the evidence of the parties. As of now, the case against the petitioner calls for further inquiry within the ambit of section 497(2), Code of Criminal Procedure.
4. For the foregoing, the instant criminal petition is converted into an appeal and the same is hereby allowed. The appellant-Hidayat Khan is allowed bail (in the instant FIR) subject to his furnishing bail bond in the sum of Rs.200,000/- (two hundred thousand) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court. Since the challan has been submitted, therefore, the learned trial court seized of the matter is directed to expedite the proceedings of trial and ensure its early conclusion. It is made clear that if the concession of bail is misused by the appellant or any delay in the conclusion of trial is caused by him or anyone else acting on his behalf, the learned trial court shall be competent to recall the bail granted to him, of course, after hearing the parties, strictly in accordance with law .