SALIH MUHAMMAD alias GHALIB vs The STATE through A.-G., Khyber
This criminal appeal arises from a petition converted from a matter where the appellant was implicated in a first information report regarding a fatal traffic accident caused by rash and negligent driving. The core legal question concerns whether the petitioner was sufficiently connected to the alleged crime to warrant the continuation of his pre-trial incarceration, particularly in the absence of direct eyewitness identification in the FIR and prolonged detention without framing of the charge. The Supreme Court held that since the FIR failed to establish direct sighting of the petitioner as the driver and no material was placed to connect him with the bus, coupled with the delay where the trial court had not yet framed charges despite prolonged custody, the appeal ought to be allowed. The key principle laid down is that post-arrest bail may be granted in accident cases involving rash and negligent driving when the initial identification is tentative, direct incriminating material is lacking, and the trial is subjected to undue delay without framing of the charge.
- Whether post-arrest bail can be granted when the FIR lacks direct eyewitness identification of the accused as the driver?
- Does an unverified delayed discovery of the accused's identity in the FIR justify continued pre-trial incarceration?
- Is prolonged detention without the framing of a charge by the trial court a ground for granting bail in a criminal matter?
QRDER MAQBOOL BAQAR, J.---As per the FIR, the complainant on 07 03.2019 witnessed an accident wherein a bus which was being driven very rashly and carelessly hit the complainant's cousin Mohammad Faraz who thus died and a student Shah Mahmood who on his way to school was injured in the accident. It is stated in the FIR that later the complainant came to know that the vehicle was being driven by Ghalib-the petitioner . The petitioner , however , was arrested on 13 March, 2019 when he surrendered before Police.
2. We have noticed that neither is it claimed in the FIR that the complainant in fact saw the petitioner driving the vehicle nor disclosed as to how he later came to know that it was being driven by the petitioner . The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that apart from the above, no material has been placed in this case so far to connect the petitioner with the bus involved in the accident. In the circumstances and keeping in view that despite the arrest of the petitioner on 13th March, 2019 who is in custody since then, even charge has not been framed by the trial Court as yet, we would therefore convert this petition into an appeal, allow the same and grant bail to the petitioner upon his furnishing surety in the sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lac Only), with surety bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court. revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.