Rohaid Ali Shah vs The State and others
This petition for post-arrest bail arises from a criminal case involving charges under sections 302, 324, 148, and 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, following a violent incident resulting in three deaths and multiple injuries. The petitioner sought bail primarily on the grounds of a cross-version, arguing that he and his brother also sustained injuries during the same occurrence, which should entitle him to bail under established precedents regarding cross-cases. The core legal question was whether the existence of a counter-version and injuries sustained by the accused automatically entitles them to the concession of bail in a case involving multiple fatalities. The Peshawar High Court dismissed the petition, holding that the mere presence of injuries on the accused does not mandate bail, especially when the prosecution's case involves significant loss of life and prompt reporting. The court emphasized that the nature of the injuries and their origin—whether self-inflicted or caused by the complainant—remains a matter for trial, and that deeper appreciation of evidence is not warranted at the bail stage.
- Does the existence of a cross-version or counter-case automatically entitle an accused to the concession of post-arrest bail?
- Can injuries sustained by an accused during the same occurrence form the sole basis for the grant of bail in a murder case?
- Is a deeper appreciation of evidence permissible at the stage of deciding a post-arrest bail application?
- Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 324, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 148, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 149, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
SAHIBZADA ASADULLAH, J.----By mean of instant petition, the petitioner seeks post-arrest bail in case FIR No. 604 dated 15.12.2020, offence under sections 302/3241 1481 149, P.P.C., P.S., Mira Khel, District Bannu, lodged on the complaint of Syed Hamza Ali Shah son of Mir Shahzad resident of Naray Pul, Tehsil and District, Bannu.
2. Complainant Syed Hamza Ali Shah reported the matter to police to the effect that on the eventful day at 06:45 hours, he along with his companions deceased Said Rehman, Wasim Khan, Khan Baz Khan, Ihtesham were proceeding from the mosque to their home, when reached the path near the house of Mir Nawaz, accused namely , Farshad Ali, Azad Ali, Roohad Ali (petitioner), Wasim Khan, Muhammad Zaman all duly armed with fire-arms, on seeing the complainant party fired at them with intention to kill, resultantly , complainant, his son Wasim Khan, Syed Rehman, Khan Baz Khan and Ihtesham got hit and injured. The daughter of complainant Mst: Farooqa Bibi who attracted to the spot on the report of firing of accused, also got hit and injured. Accused fled away from the crime scene while the injured Wasim Khan, Syed Rehman and Khan Baz Khan succumbed to their injuries on the spot.
Motive was disclosed as dispute of women folk. The occurrence was witnessed by the injured Ihtesham and Mst.
Farooqa Bibi. Thus, the accused were booked in the ibid FIR.
3. It is to be mentioned here that on the same date, time and place, the accused/petitioner and his brother Farshad Ali also sustained injuries for which as many as 08 persons including the complainant party has been charged.
4. Arguments of learned counsel for the parties as well as of learned AAG for the State heard and record gone through.
5. On perusal of record, it surfaced that in the instant FIR from the indiscriminate firing of accused charged, 03 lost their lives, whereas, 02 persons got severely injured and the matter was promptly reported to the local police. The Investigating Officer visited the spot and on spot inspection, recovered blood-s tained earth from the place of incident along with empties. The learned counsel for petitioner brought our attention to the counter-version of accused/petitioner where he himself along with his brother had received Fire-arm injuries, charging the respondent side for commission of the offence. It was further submitted that as the parties are the same, the place of the occurrence is the same and so is the time of occurrence, so in this eventuality it hardly matters that which of the side received greater damage. He quote d numerous judgments from different jurisdiction including the Supreme Court of Pakistan where in case of counter-version and cross-cases, the petitioners were mostly released on bail.
But the instant case is an exception, as in the case in hand 03 from one and the same family were done to death and 02 got injured and that the matter was promptly reported. The seat of injuries on the body of the accused/petitioner and another will not form the sole basis for release on bail, as this is yet to be determined as to whether the injuries on the person of petitioner and another were the result of firing by the respondent or these were self-inflicted.
6. Keeping in view the peculiar circumstances of the case and the damage received by the respondents, this court finds it hard to extend the concession of bail to the petitioner .
7. It is further submitted that one of accused has already been released on bail by this court, but on perusal of the bail granting order , it surfaced that the same was allowed keeping in view the precarious condition of the petitioner and the severity of his illness and on merit no opinion was tendered to benefit the petitioner . While hearing bail application, the tentative assessment is to be made and deeper appreciation is not warranted while assessing tentatively this court reaches no where, but to hold that the petitioner prima-facie seems connected with the commission of the offence and he does not deserve the concession of bail. The instant petition is meritless stands dismissed.