Kamran vs The State through A.G. Khyber Pakhtunkhwa and others
The petitioner sought post-arrest bail after the Peshawar High Court dismissed his petition in connection with FIR No. 1894 registered under Section 392, Pakistan Penal Code 1860, which was subsequently converted or related to a murder charge involving dagger blows. The core legal question was whether the petitioner, alleged to have committed a heinous offence involving capital punishment and falling within the prohibitory clause, was entitled to post-arrest bail, particularly given his status as a juvenile. The Supreme Court held that the petitioner was not entitled to bail, reasoning that the supplementary statement, statements under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, unchallenged forensic video analysis of CCTV footage, medical evidence, and weapon recovery robustly connected the petitioner to the crime. The court laid down the principle that the mere status of being a juvenile does not automatically entitle an accused to the concession of bail when charged with a heinous offence falling within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898.
- Does the status of being a juvenile automatically entitle an accused to post-arrest bail for a heinous offence?
- Whether positive forensic video analysis and recovery of the crime weapon connect the accused to the crime to bar bail under the prohibitory clause?
- Is an accused charged with an offence carrying capital punishment entitled to bail when supported by medical and circumstantial evidence?
- Section 392, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 164, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
M USARRAT HILALI, J. The petitioner's post arrest bail was dismissed by the Peshawar High Court vide impugned order dated 19.02.2024 in case FIR No.1894 dated 27.10.2023 registered under 392, P.P.C. at Police Station City Mardan.
2. In the FIR, allegation against the petitioner is that he on the day of occurrence i.e. 27.01.2023 inflicted chhuri/dagger blows at the abdomen of the deceased/complainant namely Syed Nawazish Ali Shah, which proved fatal and the complainant succumbed to injuries on the following day.
3. Heard. Record perused.
4. From perusal of record, it transpired that through a supplementary statement of the deceased/complainant, which was recorded by the police on the day of occurrence while the complainant was admitted in the hospital, wherein he nominated the present petitioner to be the unknown culprit who committed the offence. Imtiaz Hussain Shah, father of the deceased/complainant and Anwar Bacha, PWs after having seen the CCTV video of the occurrence showing Kamran stabbing' the deceased/complainant, charged the petitioner Kamran for murder of the deceased/complainant in their statements recorded under section 164, Cr.P.C. In the forensic video analysis made by the Punjab Forensic Science Agency of the CCTV video of the occurrence, no editing features were observed, hence the question of false implication does not arise in the instant matter. The cause of death, as recorded in the Post-Mortem Report, was the injuries to liver and major vessel of the abdomen. The recovered chhuri/dagger, as per FSL report, was found to be stained with the human blood. In this way, the medical evidence and the recovery of crime weapon fully support the prosecution case by connecting the petitioner with the commission of crime, which entails capital punishment and falls within the prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C. Mere fact that the petitioner was a juvenile does not entitle him to the concession of bail as he was charged for a heinous offence, the punishment for which is death or imprisonment for life or imprisonment for more than seven years.
5. Hence, for foregoing reasons, the petitioner is not entitled to the concession of bail. The bail application is, therefore, dismissed and leave declined.
6. Above are the reasons of our short order of even date.
Cited by 4 cases
- Atta Mohammad Khuhawar Versus State 2026 YLR 2237
- Munir Hussain Shah, The State vs The State etc, Munir Hussain Shah 2024 LHC 5665, 2025 YLR 1001
- Munir Hussain Shah Versus State 2025 YLR 1001
- Ismail Jatoi Versus Deputy Commissioner, Larkana 2025 MLD 1325