Mst. ZOHRA BEGUM vs ABDUL RASHID AND 5 OTHERS
This petition for leave to appeal challenges the order of the High Court granting bail to five respondents charged under section 302 read with section 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question concerns the propriety of granting bail in a murder case where eye-witness testimony implicates the accused and the High Court allegedly misconstrued the sequence of incidents and the weapon possession of the accused. The Supreme Court found substance in the petitioner's contentions that the incidents were distinct and the accused were already armed, holding that there are reasonable grounds to believe the accused are guilty of an offense punishable with death. However, instead of granting leave and recalling the bail, the Supreme Court disposed of the petition with the observation that the inquiry magistrate and trial judge shall not be influenced by the bail-granting order, and that upon committal to the Court of Sessions, the bail granted by the High Court would stand cancelled. The key principle laid down is that trial courts must independently assess evidence without being influenced by tentative observations made in bail orders.
- Whether bail can be granted under section 302 read with section 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 when eye-witnesses implicate the accused in a murder?
- Does the cancellation of bail naturally follow upon committal to the Court of Sessions under specific circumstances?
- Are trial judges and inquiry magistrates bound by tentative observations made in an order granting bail?
- Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 149, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
1. ' MUHAMMAD YAQUB ALI, J.-The five respondents are charged for the offence under section 302 read with section 149, P. P. C. The High Court has granted them bail. Counsel for the petitioner points out
(i) That the two incidents were distinct from each other in time. Indeed, the first incident constituted the motive for the assault on the deceased and the injured P. W. S. The learned Chief Justice has, ho never, juxtaposed both the incidents into one transaction and treated the first incident as a circumstance in favour of the accused ; and
(ii) That the accused were already armed with bottles and it is not correct that they had picked up the bottles from the scene of crime as observed in the order granting bail.
2. ' There is substance in both the contentions raised in support of the edition.
3. The prosecution case is supported by two eye-witnesses who have been examined by the Inquiry Magistrates. There are four more eye-witnesses hose statements are yet to be recorded. If their version is accepted all the accused will be found guilty of the offence of murder read with section 149, P. C. In this view we are not inclined to agree with the learned Chief justice that there are no reasons to believe that the five respondents are guilty of the offence punishable with death.
4. ' However, instead of granting leave to appeal and recalling the order of bail passed by the High Court it will be sufficient to observe that the inquiry Magistrate and the trial Judge will not be influenced by what has even said in the order granting bail to the accused. Further if they are committed to stand trial before the Court of Sessions the bail granted to them by the High Court would no doubt be cancelled.