Mst. RASHID BEGUM vs ABDUL RASHID and others
This matter originated from an application filed by Mst. Rashid Begum before the Supreme Court of Pakistan, seeking the cancellation of bail granted to the respondent, Abdul Rashid, who was accused of murder. The core legal question before the Court was whether the High Court's order granting bail to the respondent, in a case involving circumstantial evidence, satisfied the established judicial standards for bail in murder cases. Upon review, the Supreme Court noted that the prosecution's case rested on circumstantial evidence, including recovery of a weapon and witness statements regarding the disposal of items in a canal. The Court held that in cases of circumstantial evidence, the evidentiary value should be left for the trial court to determine. Finding that the respondent was not entitled to the concession of bail under the circumstances, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal, cancelled the respondent's bail, and dismissed his separate application for bail. The Court further directed the trial court to expedite the proceedings, emphasizing that bail is not appropriate where circumstantial evidence warrants a full trial examination.
- Whether bail should be granted in a murder case resting primarily on circumstantial evidence?
- Does the Supreme Court have the authority to cancel bail granted by the High Court if the discretion was not exercised in accordance with established practice?
- Is it appropriate for the appellate court to evaluate the evidentiary value of circumstantial evidence at the bail stage?
ORDER
1. ' GHULAM MUJADDID, J.--Mst. Rashid Begum addressed an application to the Hon'ble Chief Justice, Supreme Court of Pakistan in which she mentioned about the murder of her son Zaheer Ahmad.
2. She further stated that the accused had been bailed out and he wanted to abduct her daughter- in-law.
3. ' The application was presented in person in Court. It was dealt with by M.A. Zullah,J. On 30-4-1989, who ordered that it be registered as petition for special leave to appeal by relaxing the rules and be fixed on 3-5-1989 before any Bench.
4. ' The application was marked to the Registrar with an observation that the above-mentioned order was subject to approval by the Hon'ble Chief Justice. The order passed by the learned Judge was approved by the Chief Justice.
5. ' On 3-5-1989, the petition came up for hearing before a Bench of three Judges of this Court. Notice was issued to the State and Abdur Rashid accused-respondent for a date at Lahore. The Bench ordered that the police file should be made available at the time of hearing of the petition.
6. ' On 21-6-1989, Mst. Rashid Begum was heard in person. State was represented by Mr. Muhammad Akhtar, Additional A dvocate-General. He supported the plea of Mst. Rashid Begum which was for cancellation of bail of Abdul Rashid respondent.
7. Leave was granted to consider as to "whether the order dated 3-12-1988 passed by the High Court releasing Abdur Rashid respondent on bail, in the facts and circumstances of this case, satisfies the well-established practice of the superior Courts regarding release on bail of accused involved in cases of murder".
8. ' The appeal came up for hearing today. The appellant is present in person. Assistant Advocate- General appeared on behalf of the State and straightway supported the plea of the appellant for cancellation of bail.
9. ' As the accused has been remanded to custody, he separately moved application (Cr. M.P. 142- R/89) for bail.
10. ' The appeal of Mst. Rashid Begum and the application for bail on behalf of Abdul Rashid respondent are being decided by this judgment.
11. ' We have heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the accused-respondent who supported the impugned order of the Lahore High Court.
12. ' According to the learned counsel, the discretion exercised by the High Court called upon for no interference.
13. Respondent Abdul Rashid is involved in a murder case. There is no eyewitness of the occurrence.
14. Prosecution is relying on the circumstantial evidence which consists of the statement of Muhammad Aslam made by him before the police on 7-9-1988; recovery of hatchet from the respondent; statements of Javed Akhtar and Muhammad Khan made by them on 5-6-1988 before the police where they stated that they saw the respondent and co-accused Riaz throwing something in the canal on the night of occurrence. The deceased was killed by strangulation.
15. ' In the statement of Muhammad Aslam, it is alleged that the respondent borrowed a Parna which he used for the murder of Zaheer Ahmad.
16. ' This being a case of circumstantial evidence, it should have been left for the trial Court to examine the evidentiary value of such evidence.
17. ' It is not a fit case where respondent was entitled to the concession of bail. The appeal is allowed.
18. Bail is cancelled.
19. ' The petition moved on behalf of the respondent being without merit is hereby dismissed.
20. ' The trial Court is ordered to expedite the trial.
Cited by 6 cases
- Khalid vs State 2025 PHC 246
- Khalid Versus State 2026 YLR 1677
- ABDUL GHAFOOR Versus State 2016 PCrLJ 1754
- ZAFAR IQBAL vs THE STATE 1993 P Cr. L J 972
- MUHAMMAD ASHRAF vs MUHAMMAD ISMAIL And Others 1992 P Cr. L J 1671
- MUHAMMAD ASLAM Versus THE STATE 1996 PCRLJ 287