Fazal Hadi vs Yaqoob Ullah and another
This petition challenged a Peshawar High Court judgment that granted post-arrest bail to the respondent in a murder case registered under sections 302/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the respondent was entitled to bail given the evidentiary circumstances surrounding the death of his wife. The complainant had initially charged the respondent in a statement under section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, but the High Court noted the absence of disclosed sources or material linking the respondent to the crime. The Supreme Court reviewed the post-mortem report, which indicated a ligature mark on the front of the neck, and considered conflicting accounts regarding whether this injury resulted from a fall or external pressure. The Court held that the determination of the cause of death requires further inquiry by the trial court after medical evidence is recorded. Consequently, the Supreme Court dismissed the petition, affirming that the case against the respondent called for further inquiry, thereby upholding the bail grant.
- Does the absence of a disclosed source for an accusation in a statement under section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 justify a grant of bail?
- When medical evidence regarding the cause of death is inconclusive, does the case of the accused call for further inquiry for the purpose of bail?
- Is a bail-granting order that is well-reasoned liable to be interfered with by the Supreme Court?
- Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 34, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 164, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
SARDAR TARIQ M ASOOD, J. Through this petition, petitioner Fazal Hadi impugns the judgment dated 16.11.2021 passed by the Peshawar High Court, Peshawar through which post arrest bail application filed by respondent No. 1 (the respondent) was allowed in case FIR No. 1119 dated 06.08.2021 registered under sections 302/34, P.P.C. at Police Station Pahari Pura, Peshawar.
2. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the respondent through video link from Peshawar and the learned counsel for the state, perused the available record including the impugned judgment and observed that nobody is nominated in the FIR and subsequently complainant made statement under section 164, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 in which he charged the respondent but it was observed by the High Court that in the said statement no source and no material was disclosed by the complainant/petitioner through which he came to know regarding involvement of the respondent in this case. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that as the deceased was the wife of the respondent and his statement before the police that she died due to fall in the bathroom is not supported from the fact that there was a ligature mark around the neck of the deceased. We have gone through the postmortem report and according to this report, the ligature mark was only on the front side of the neck and it is mentioned by the lady witnesses, who reached after the occurrence at the spot thus they saw the deceased in the naked condition while lying in the washroom near a Bucket (Balti). The trial court, after recording the statement of the doctor, will determine as to whether the ligature mark was the result of the fall on the said Bucket or due to some pressure of the rope around her neck. Presently, due to the said reason, the case of the respondent calls for further inquiry. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the state contends that challan has been submitted in the Court. The bail granting judgment, being well reasoned, needs no interference by this Court. Consequently, this petition is dismissed and leave declined.