Shehryar Khan vs The State and another
This criminal petition for leave to appeal arose from the petitioner's request for post-arrest bail in a murder case. The petitioner was charged with firing a fatal shot at the deceased during a dispute over immovable property. The core legal question was whether the existence of a 'cross version' of the incident, based on an injury sustained by a co-accused (the petitioner's brother), entitled the petitioner to bail, particularly when the petitioner had absconded following the incident and was only apprehended months later. The Supreme Court held that the merits of the cross-version and the claim of self-defense were matters to be determined by the trial court, not at the bail stage. Furthermore, the Court observed that the suppression of injuries in both versions did not elevate the petitioner's case for bail. Crucially, the Court ruled that the specific role attributed to the petitioner, combined with his post-incident abscondence, precluded his release on bail. The petition for leave to appeal was dismissed, affirming that a cross-version does not automatically necessitate further probe or bail when the accused is charged with a fatal act.
- Does the existence of a cross-version in a murder case automatically entitle an accused to bail?
- Can an accused's abscondence after the commission of an offense act as an impediment to the grant of post-arrest bail?
- Is the veracity of a cross-version regarding self-defense a matter to be decided at the bail stage or by the trial court?
- Section 512, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
QAZI MUHAMMAD AMIN AHMED, J.---Shehryar Khan, petitioner, attributed a fatal shot to Sabir-ur-Rehman, deceased, in his mid 60s, at 9:30 a.m. on 13.04.2019, within the remit of Police Station Daduzai Peshawar, in the backdrop of a dispute over immovable property, seeks admission to bail, primarily on the strength of a 'cross version' structured upon a fire arm injury, sustained by Majid Khan, co-accused, no other than his real brother, medically examined under a police docket on the fateful day. Petitioner, after the incident, stayed away from law and was, accordingly, proceeded under section 512 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898; he was finally taken into custody on 12.02.2020.
2. Heard. Record perused.
3 It would be less than expedient to comment upon the merits of the prosecution case, bracing a cross version set up on an injury, sustained by the co-accused, pressed into service with vehemence to construct hypothesis of self defence, a controversy to be best settled by the trial Court. Argument regarding suppression of injury sustained by Majid, co-accused, in the face of identical suppression in the cross version regarding the fatal shot on to the deceased, does not bring petitioner's case at a higher pedestal so as to be received with favour.
Saddled with the responsibility of the fatal shot, petitioner's absence from law, additionally, stands in impediment to his release on bail. Given the role attributed to the petitioner, existence of a cross version, veracity whereof is yet to be settled, by itself would not bring his case within the purview of further probe. Petition fails. Leave declined.
Cited by 3 cases
- Kafayat Ullah vs State and 6 others PLJ 2022 Cr.C. 349
- Babar Hussain vs The State and another 2022 YLR 1488
- AHMAD KHAN Versus State 2022 PCrLJN 11