GHULAM NABI alias BAO Versus THE STATE
This is a criminal petition filed by Ghulam Nabi alias Bao seeking post-arrest bail in a murder case registered under sections 302/34, Pakistan Penal Code 1860 arising from Crime Report No.208 at Police Station Nishtar Colony, Lahore. The core legal question is whether the petitioner is entitled to post-arrest bail given the specific role attributed to him and the availability of prima facie evidence. The Lahore High Court held that since eyewitnesses and the complainant's supplementary statement attributed a fatal injury by a brickbat to the petitioner, and deeper appreciation of evidence is not permissible at the bail stage, the petitioner has no ground for relief. The petition was accordingly dismissed with a direction to the trial court to conclude the trial expeditiously. The key principle laid down is that where prosecution evidence prima facie connects the accused to a fatal injury in a heinous crime, post-arrest bail will be refused.
- Whether an accused is entitled to post-arrest bail when eyewitnesses attribute a fatal injury to him?
- Can deeper appreciation of evidence be undertaken at the bail stage?
- Does the rule of consistency apply when the co-accused granted bail had a distinctly lesser role of abetment compared to the principal accused?
- Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 34, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 324, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 161, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 265-C, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
Ghulam Nabi alias Bao-petitioner alongwith three others, namely. Muhammad Sharif, Shaukat and Ghulam Mustafa, is involved in Crime Report No.208, dated 7-6-2001, under sections 302/34, P.P.C. registered at Police Station Nishtar Colony, Lahore, at the behest of Barkat Ali, father of Muhammad Azam deceased.
2. Motive behind the occurrence was that one and a half year earlier Muhammad Azam deceased had produced a wound on the person of Ghulam Nabi petitioner by making a pistol shot regarding which a case under section 324, P.P.C. stood registered. Later on, both the sides had arrived at a compromise.
3. The petitioner was arrested by the police on 19-7-2001 and was sent to the judicial lock-up when no longer required for further investigation. He preferred his application for grant of post-arrest bail before learned Sessions Judge, Lahore, who made over the same to learned Additional Sessions Judge for disposal thereof in accordance with law. The said learned Judge after taking everything into his full consideration dismissed the same by virtue of his order dated 9-5-2002, on the basis of multiple reasons embodied in the order itself. Now he has approached this Court by filing the instant petition seeking same relief.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently argues that the petitioner was not assigned the role of causing any injury upon the deceased in the First Information Report and only part played by him was that he alongwith Ghulam Mustafa co-accused held Muhammad Azam deceased and took him towards outer wall of the house of one Malik Liaqat, where Shaukat accused fired through his pistol striking Muhammad Azam near his heart that Muhammad Sharif, father of the petitioner, is alleged to have abetted the crime in question; that no recovery has been made at his instance and entire family members stood implicated in this case because of animosity; that Muhammad Sharif father of the petitioner has already been allowed bail by this Court on 15-2-2002; that the petitioner was behind the bars for the last about ten months and that trial has sot commenced so far.
5. Conversely, learned counsel for the complainant assisted by learned counsel for the State submits that the petitioner had a strong motive to commit the crime in question; that he alongwith Ghulam Mustafa, brought him forcibly near the wall of the house of one Malik Liaqat, where his co-accused fired at him through his pistol; that three witnesses, namely, Niamat Ali, Shahid Hussain and Jahangir, attributed a fatal injury to the petitioner in their statements under section 161, Cr.P.C. made by them on the very day of occurrence, and that they forcefully alleged that Ghulam Nabi-petitioner delivered a brickbat at Muhammad Azam deceased, striking right side of his chest. According to learned counsel, this injury was declared fatal by the doctor, who performed autopsy on dead body of Muhammad Azam deceased; that the challan has already been submitted before the Court having jurisdiction in the matter, that copies of all the relevant documents as envisaged by the relevant provisions of section 265-C, Cr.P.C. have been delivered to the accused and that now it is fixed for 29-6-2002 for framing of charge.
6. I have courteously heard and soberly considered respective arguments of both the sides. Admittedly, Niamat Ali, Shahid Hussain and Jahangir P. Ws. have attributed the fatal blow by throwing a brickbat at Muhammad Azam deceased by Ghulam Nabi-petitioner. The complainant also in his supplementary statement did the same. Deeper appreciation of evidence cannot be undertaken at this stage. Prima facie, there is overwhelming evidence with the prosecution to substantiate charge against the petitioner and others. Muhammad Sharif, who was allowed bail by this Court, was simply alleged to have abetted the crime in question. I see no good reason to allow bail to the petitioner.
7. This petition is accordingly, dismissed.
8. Trial Court is, however, directed to conclude trial of the case expeditiously under intimation to this Court.
H.B.T./G-254/L Bail application dismissed.