SHAFIQ AHMED vs THE STATE
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against the refusal of post-arrest bail by the High Court in a murder case. The petitioner was charged with the murder of Muhammad Iqbal, based on the statements of two witnesses who claimed to have seen the petitioner leaving the deceased's house around midnight. The initial First Information Report did not implicate the petitioner or any other suspect. The High Court had previously denied bail, citing the existence of a motive due to prior litigation between the parties and the testimony of the eyewitnesses. Upon review, the Supreme Court examined the evidence and the circumstances surrounding the alleged identification. The Court held that the case against the petitioner required further inquiry, as the evidence presented did not sufficiently establish a prima facie case at the pre-trial stage to warrant continued incarceration. Consequently, the Court converted the petition into an appeal, allowed it, and granted the petitioner bail, subject to the furnishing of sureties to the satisfaction of the trial Court.
- Does the existence of prior litigation between the accused and the complainant automatically disentitle an accused to bail in a murder case?
- When does a criminal case qualify for 'further inquiry' under the law governing bail?
- Is the testimony of witnesses claiming to see an accused leaving a scene of a crime sufficient to deny bail when the initial FIR was lodged against unknown persons?
' SHAFIUR RAHMAN, J.--The petitioner has been charged for the murder of Muhammad Iqbal. He was refused bail by the trial Court on 29-1-1989 and by the High Court on 26-3-1989. He seeks leave to appeal and the grant of bail in the matter.
2. Haji Bashir Ahmad, a brother of the deceased residing in the adjoining house where the deceased lived alone lodged a Report at 9:30 a.m. On 17-7-1988 at Police Station Saddar Mailsi, District Vehari, stating that when he went to the house of the deceased he found his brother murdered and the doors of his house open. He did not name any accused nor any suspect.
3. Subsequently Allah Jiwaya and Ghaus Bakhsh two persons resident of adjoining village claimed to have come in this village in order to see a film on V.C.R. And while returning they happened to pass by the house of the deceased and at about mid-night claimed to have seen the petitioner coming out of his house in a manner and mood to raise no suspicion in their mind. When in the morning the next day they learnt of the murder of the deceased, they disclosed this information and on it the petitioner and his companion Zafaryab were arrested. Zafaryab was allowed bail by the High Court but the petitioner was refused with the observations as hereunder:- "The perusal of the photostats of the statements shows that some prosecution witnesses in that case were declared hostile but nothing has been shown to me as to what posture the complainant had adopted in that case. In any event, there was a litigation between the complainant and Shafiq Ahmad petitioner and their inter se relations appeared to be far from being happy. In addition to this motive, there is evidence against Shafiq Ahmad of his having been seen by Allah Jiwaya and Ghaus Bakhsh P.Ws. Coming out of the house of the deceased. This evidence is sufficient to make out a prima facie case against Shafiq Ahmad petitioner whose bail application is rejected."
4. After notice to the State and hearing Mr. Muhammad Nawaz Abbasi, Assistant Advocate- General, we have converted this petition into an appeal and proceed to allow it as we consider that the case against the petitioner is open to further inquiry. He is admitted to bail in the sum of Rs, 25,000 with two sureties in the like amount to the satisfaction of trial Court.
Cited by 1 case
- KANWAR KHALID YOUNUS vs THE STATE 1993 P Cr. L J 437