SAID ALAM Versus State
This matter concerns a post-arrest bail petition filed by the petitioner, Syed Alam, who was charged under sections 302/324/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 in connection with a murder case. The petitioner sought bail primarily on the grounds that the number of injuries sustained by the deceased did not correspond with the number of accused persons charged, and that no bullet marks were found at the crime scene. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to bail despite being directly charged in the First Information Report, which was based on the dying declaration of the victim. The Court held that the petitioner was not entitled to bail at this stage. It reasoned that the victim had attributed specific roles and weapons to the accused, and that the case rested on a dying declaration, which required further evidence to establish the victim's state of consciousness. The Court established that the lack of correspondence between the number of injuries and the number of accused does not automatically entitle an accused to bail in a mechanical manner.
- Does the lack of correspondence between the number of injuries and the number of accused persons automatically entitle an accused to bail?
- Can a court grant bail in a murder case where the accused is directly charged in a dying declaration?
- Is it appropriate for a court to dissect the merits of a dying declaration during the bail stage?
- Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 324, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 34, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
SAHIBZADA ASADULLAH, J .---Petitioner Syed Alam, after refusal of bail by the learned court below, in case FIR No.584 dated 08-12-2020, registered under sections 302/324/34, P.P.C., at Police Station Hayed, District Bannu moved the instant bal petition to this Court on different ground, mentioned therein.
2. Concisely the facts of the prosecution case as is evident from the First Information Report are, that on 08-12-2020 2020 at about 16.35 hours, complainant Ajab Noor Khan in injured condition lodged a report in the Emergency Ward of Civil Hospital, Bannu to the effect that on the eventful day, he along with his father Wali Shah was present at metaled road leading to Gul Badin Landidak, near grocery shop situated in village Hayed Khass, when at about 15.50 hours, accused Said Rauf duly armed with 12 bore shot gun, Tawab Raheem, armed with pistol, accused petitioner Syed Alam, armed with kalashnikov attracted to the spot and immediately they started firing at them with the intention to commit their qatl-i-amd, resultantly he was hit and injured, while his father Khan Wall Shah luckily escaped unhurt. Accused decamped from the spot after the occurrence. Being empty handed, they could do nothing. It is pertinent to mention here that the complainant lateron succumbed to the injuries, hence; the FIR (ibid).
3. I have heard arguments of learned counsel for the parties, learned Asstt. A.G. for the state and have gone through the record with their valuable assistance.
4. The record tells that the petitioner along with two others ate directly charged for the murder of the deceased. It is pertinent to mention here that initially after receiving fire arm injuries; the complainant was rushed to the hospital in injured condition, who lateron expired. It is evident from the record that it was non-else but the deceased then injured, who reported the matter to the local police and cha4rged the petitioner along with others for fire arms injuries on his persons. Though the matter was argued at considerable length and the main trust of the learned counsel for the petitioner was that three persons are charged for two fire arm injuries on the person of the deceased. It was argued with vehemence that the number of injuries do not commensurate with the number of the accused and that no bullet marks were found on the surrounding walls. True that the number of injuries commensurate with the number of the accused but it is not a rule thumb that in every criminal case, the accused charged, are to be released on bail in a mechanical way. The Investigating officer during the spot inspection recovered the empties of different caliber and it was the deceased then injured, who has attributed specific role to the accused with specific weapons of offence. As the case is one of dying declaration and in such eventuality if this Court dissect the material aspect of the case, then it will prejudice the case of the prosecution, even otherwise this is yet to be established on the record after recording pro and contra evidence that whether the deceased while reporting the matter was conscious and oriented in time and space. At present what this Court can assess is that prima facie, the petitioner seems connected with the commission of the offence and could not succeed in making out of his case for bail. This petition being bereft of merit, is hereby dismissed.
SA/132/P Bail declined.