ABDUL AZIZ vs SALEH MUHAMMAD and another
This is a petition for leave to appeal directed against the order of the Baluchistan High Court, which had declined to grant post-arrest bail to the petitioner standing trial alongside a co-accused. The core legal question before the Supreme Court was whether the High Court was justified in refusing bail when a prosecution witness had directly implicated the petitioner in the murder charge, despite arguments concerning the delay in recording the witness's statement. The Supreme Court held that in view of the weight of evidence from at least one eye-witness directly implicating the accused, the High Court rightly refused bail, as deeper evaluation of evidence and assessment of delay cannot be undertaken at the bail stage. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, affirming the principle that tentative assessment of a direct ocular account is sufficient to decline bail without entering into a detailed comparative analysis of witness statements or procedural delays at this preliminary stage.
- Whether bail can be refused when an eye-witness directly implicates the accused in a murder case?
- Can the effect of delay in recording a witness statement be determined at the bail stage?
- Is a detailed evaluation of statements of witnesses justified at the juncture of considering a bail petition?
- Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 34, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
1. ' ABDUL KADIR SHAIKH, J.--This is a petition for leave to appeal from the order of a learned Judge of Baluchistan High Court rejecting petitioner's request for bail pending trial of a case against him and co-accused under section 302/34, P.P.C. Earlier petitioner's request in this behalf was rejected by the Additional Sessions Judge III, Quetta for the reason that one of the prosecution witnesses, namely Abdul Baqi had attributed the murder of Wali, deceased in the case, to petitioner. Learned Single Judge in the High Court rejected petitioner's request for the reasons which may be stated in his own words as under: "I have gone through available record and considered the arguments advanced by learned counsel for parties. For the present there is categoric statement of P.W. Abdul Baqi directly implicating the petitioner for the commission of offence alleged against him. However effect of delay in recording his statement cannot be determined at this stage. Similarly evaluation of his statement by comparing with statements of other witnesses will also not be justified at this juncture. Therefore in my opinion presently it is, not a fit case for grant of bail, accordingly petition is rejected."
2. ' We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner on the points raised by him in support of the petition and gone through the record before us. In view of the weight of evidence of at least one eye-witness, learned Judge in the High Court rightly refused to grant petitioner's request for release on bail for the reasons with which no exception can be taken. The petition has no merit and is dismissed.
Cited by 7 cases
- Sajjad Ahmad vs State 2023 PHC 12
- Sajjad Ahmed vs The State and another 2023 PCRLJ 1508
- BACHA ZEB Versus State 2017 PCrLJN 169
- State Versus NIAMAT WALI 2016 GBLR 127
- MUHAMMAD RUSTAM vs STATE and another PLJ 2004 Cr.C. (Peshawar) 345
- MUHAMMAD RUSTAM vs THE STATE and anothers 2004 YLR 1249
- YAR MUHAMMAD vs ARIF And Others 1991 P Cr. L J 529