Abdur Rehman Versus State
This matter arises from a post-arrest bail application filed by the petitioner, Abdur Rehman, who was charged under Section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 read with Section 15 of the Arms Ordinance, for the murder of his wife inside his house. The core legal question was whether the petitioner made out a case for post-arrest bail on grounds of further inquiry or lack of reasonable grounds. The Peshawar High Court held that the petitioner was directly charged in the FIR, incriminating evidence including the weapon of offence and empties were recovered from his possession, and statements of eye-witnesses including his daughter supported the prosecution version. The court ruled that reasonable grounds existed connecting the petitioner to an offense falling within the prohibitory limb of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, and thus he was not entitled to bail. The key principle laid down is that bail under the prohibitory clause cannot be granted on the mere ground of further inquiry without a definite conclusion that reasonable grounds are lacking.
- Whether an accused directly charged with murder in the FIR is entitled to post-arrest bail when incriminating evidence and the weapon of offence are recovered from his possession?
- Can bail be allowed under the prohibitory limb of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 on the mere ground of further inquiry without a finding that reasonable grounds are lacking?
- Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
Order
Abdul Fayaz, J.--- This order is directed to dispose of the instant application filed by the petitioner namely Abdur Rahman for the grant of post arrest bail in case FIR No. 78 dated 17.10.2024 registered under section 302 P.P.C. read with Section 15-A.A., at Police Station Khar, District Bajaur.
2. Essential facts, as per contents of the FIR, are that the complainant Salim Khan, while present with the dead body of his sister/deceased Mst. Shakeela Bibi, reported the matter to the local police at DHQ Hospital Khar, District Bajaur, that some 19/20 years ago, his sister was married to the accused/petitioner Abdur Rahman, whose relations were not cordial; that on the eventful night, he received an information that his sister has been done to death by her husband (accused/petitioner) by firing at her and her dead body has been shifted to DHQ Hospital, Khar. As such, he rushed to the hospital, where he found his sister dead. The occurrence was stated to have been witnessed by inmates of the house and motive behind the occurrence was stated to be strained relations between the spouses. The report of complainant was reduced in the shape of Murasila, which culminated into registration of the ibid FIR.
3. Arguments heard and record perused.
4. Perusal of record reveals that the accused/petitioner has been directly charged in the FIR for committing the murder of his wife, Mst. Shakeela Bibi. The record also reveals that the accused/petitioner is nobody else but husband of the deceased and in between the spouses, relations were not cordial. Moreso, during the course of investigation, the Investigating Officer has also recovered four empties of Kalashnikov from the place of occurrence and from personal possession of the accused/petitioner, he has also recovered the weapon of offence, i.e., Kalashnikov, along with charger having 20 live cartridges, which fully support the version of the prosecution. Furthermore, the occurrence has taken place inside the house of accused/petitioner, where he has been charged for the murder of his wife.
5. Apart from the above, the version of the prosecution is also supported by the statements of eye-witnesses especially Mst. Iqra Bibi (daughter of the accused/ petitioner) and the medico-legal/postmortem report of the deceased, whereby she has received multiple firearm injuries on her body. On tentative assessment of the available record, reasonable grounds do exist, which connect the accused/petitioner with the commission of the offence which also falls within the prohibitory limb of section 497 Cr. P.C. In the case of Arbab Ali v. Khamiso and others reported as 1985 SCMR 195, the Hon'ble apex Court has observed that:
"There are certain other features also in this case, which have not been attended in the High Court before giving a verdict that was a case of "further inquiry". It needs to be clarified that bail can be allowed (in a case otherwise allegedly falling under the prohibition contained in subsection (1) of section 467) under subsection (2) of section 487, Cr.P.C. when there are sufficient grounds, for further inquiry into the guilt of the accused but only on the condition when the Police Officer or the Court at any stage of investigation, inquiry or trial, as the case may be, comes to a definite conclusion that there are no reasonable grounds for believing that the accused has committed a non-Bailable offence. Without this finding bail cannot be allowed under subsection (2) on mere ground that there are sufficient grounds of further inquiry."
As such, for the time being, the accused/petitioner is not entitled for the concession of bail.
6. Challan in the instant case has already been put in Court, therefore, the learned trial Court would be in a better position to adjudge the guilt or otherwise of the accused/petitioner after recording of pro and contra evidence.
7. Accordingly, the instant bail application stands dismissed. The above observations of this Court, being tentative in nature, shall have no bearing on merits of the case at the time of its final decision by trial Court.
JK/43/P Application dismissed.