RASHID vs THE STATE
This petition for leave to appeal arises from the refusal of bail by the High Court of Sind in a criminal case involving charges under Sections 307 and 353 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The petitioner, apprehended with a Klashankov after allegedly firing at a police party, sought bail on the grounds that the firing was ineffective and disputed his possession of the weapon, suggesting it might have belonged to an absconding companion. The High Court denied bail, noting the absence of enmity between the complainant and the accused, the heinous nature of the offence, and the timing of the incident. The Supreme Court reviewed the High Court's order and affirmed the decision, holding that the reasons provided by the High Court were sufficient to disentitle the petitioner to bail at the current stage of proceedings. The Court upheld the High Court's direction allowing the petitioner to repeat the bail application before the trial court only after the examination of the complainant and two eye-witnesses, thereby maintaining the established judicial discretion regarding bail in heinous offences.
- Does the absence of enmity between the complainant and the accused justify the refusal of bail in cases involving heinous offences?
- Can a bail application be repeated before the trial court after the examination of key prosecution witnesses?
- Is the recovery of a weapon at the time of arrest a relevant factor for the court to consider when deciding on a bail application?
- Section 307, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 353, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
1. ' SHAFIUR RAHMAN, J.--The petitioner charged for an offence of ineffective firing by a Klashankov under sections 307 and 353, P.P.0 and refused bail by the two Courts, seeks leave to appeal against the judgment/order of the High Court of Sind dated 11-8-1988.
2. ' At midnight on 16th/17th July, 1988, the petitioner allegedly fired at a Police Party alongwith a companion who managed to escape. After some pursuit the petitioner was apprehended with Klashankov.
3. ' The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the charge is of ineffective firing and it is also open to question whether Klashankov was at all possessed by the petitioner and was not the one thrown by his absconding companion. According to the learned counsel all these factors eminently entitled the petitioner to bail.
4. While rejecting the Application for Bail in the matter the High Court observed as follows:-- "There is nothing on record to show that Police Party including complainant had any enmity with the applicant. According to the prosecution the applicant had fired at the Police Party and was arrested with Klashankov at odd hours of the night. The incident is a very recent incident and the offence is a heinous one. In view of the above reasons I am of the considered view that the applicant is not entitled to bail at this stage and the application is accordingly dismissed.
5. However, the applicant will be entitled to repeat his bail application before the learned trial Judge after the complainant and two eye-witnesses are examined."
6. ' The reasons given by the High Court justifiably disentitle the Petitioner to bail at this stage, and in such a case. Leave to appeal is, therefore, refused.
Cited by 1 case
- RAJAB Versus STATE 1992 MLD 2467