TABASSUM JAMIL vs THE STATE
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal against the order of the High Court of Sind, which upheld the refusal of pre-trial bail to the petitioner by the Sessions Judge. The petitioner is charged with offenses under sections 302, 307, and 380/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code for allegedly participating in a double murder and theft alongside a co-accused. The core legal question concerns whether the petitioner was entitled to post-arrest bail given the existence of a prompt First Information Report, specific ocular testimony, direct attribution of firearm use, and supporting weapon recoveries. The Supreme Court held that the lower courts correctly evaluated the material on record, noting the presence of direct charges, independent eyewitnesses, and a lack of established mala fides or false implication. Consequently, the Court affirmed the refusal of bail and dismissed the petition for leave to appeal, laying down that where prima facie sufficient incriminating evidence exists connecting an accused to a capital charge, bail ought not to be granted.
- Whether an accused is entitled to bail when named in a prompt First Information Report with a specific role attributed in a capital offense?
- Does the recovery of a weapon and presence of independent eyewitnesses constitute reasonable grounds precluding the grant of post-arrest bail?
- Whether mere distance of arrest from the scene of the crime renders the presence of the accused doubtful at the bail stage?
- Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code
- Section 307, Pakistan Penal Code
- Section 380, Pakistan Penal Code
- Section 34, Pakistan Penal Code
1. ' SHAFIUR RAHMAN, J.--The petitioner, charged of the offences under sections 302, 307 and 380/34, P.P.C., seeks leave to appeal against the Order of the High Court of Sind dated 7th of March, 1988, whereby the rejection of his Bail Application by the Sessions Judge was upheld.
2. ' The petitioner is charged alongwith one Muhammad Yousuf for the offences disclosed above resulting in the deaths of two persons. The allegation against the petitioner was that on 6th of May, 1987 he had fired revolver at The Muhammad and Ghulam Muhammad, ultimately causing thereby death of one them while Yousuf the companion of the petitioner had given knife blows Roobi causing her instantaneous death. Thereafter, the petitioner alongwith Yousuf allegedly searched the house and took away gold ornaments and cash Rs, 2,500.
3. ' The Additional Sessions Judge rejected the Bail Application on 13th of February, 1988 observing as hereunder:-- "The name of the accused/applicant in the F.I.R. And role has been assigned to the applicant/accused. He has fired from his. Pistol which hit to the complainant on his head. The recovery of revolver has also been made from the applicant on pointation of the accused/applicant Tabbasum Jamil. The incident has taken place at broad daylight at 10.00 a.m.
4. The F.I.R. Has been lodged after half an hour i.e, 10.30 a.m. The offence is punishable with death or imprisonment of life, I, therefore, reject the bail application of the applicant/accused Tabbasum Jamil son of Nadir Khan."
5. ' The High Court also denied him the bail, observing as hereunder:- "There is direct allegation against the applicant came duly armed with revolver in the house of complainant and fired at two persons namely complainant and Taj Muhammad. He was with Yousuf who according to the prosecution gave injuries to Rubby who died at the spot and Yousaf was caught red-handed. The delay has properly been explained as complainant took Rubby to hospital and Usman brought injured Taj Muhammad in the Jinnah Hospital. Even otherwise delay of two hours only as injured were removed to hospital for medical aid. The prosecution case is that one broken handle of revolver of applicant was secured from the Wardat and accused also produced pistol with broken handle. There are four independent eye-witnesses. Prima facie there is sufficient evidence and there are no reasonable grounds that applicant is not guilty of the charge.
6. The application is dismissed."
7. ' The learned counsel for the petitioner has pressed this Application for Bail on the ground that the petitioner had no concern with the complainant, the injured or the deceased. He has been implicated only on account of his friendship with Yousuf who could possibly have a grievance. It has also been urged that the arrest of the petitioner from Hyderabad when the occurrence had taken place at Karachi makes the case against him and his presence in Karachi at the given hour doubtful.
8. We find that all aspects of the submissions now being made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, have been attended to by the two Courts there is indeed a direct charge against him. In view of the absence of enmity, there does not appear any reason why he should have been falsely implicated.
9. No case for bail is made out at this stage on the material on record and to petitioner was rightly refused bail. Leave to appeal is, therefore, refused.
10. ' Leave to .