BASHIR AHMED and 2 others vs THE STATE
This criminal petition seeks leave to appeal against the order of the Lahore High Court rejecting the petitioners' bail application in a case involving multiple murders and firearm injuries under sections 302, 324, 148, 149, and 379 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question is whether an accused is entitled to bail solely because successive police investigations placed them in column No. 2 of the report under section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, despite being directly charged in the FIR. The Supreme Court held that the petitioners are not entitled to bail because the investigating agency's exoneration was based on inadmissible evidence, namely statements of local respectables who were not eye-witnesses, rather than admissible material. The Court laid down the principle that while an investigation exonerating an accused is normally a ground for bail, this principle does not apply when the favorable finding rests entirely on inadmissible evidence, and a prima facie case is otherwise made out by the FIR, injuries, and specific roles attributed.
- Is an accused entitled to bail solely because successive police investigations placed them in column No. 2 of the final report?
- Does the principle that an exonerating investigation entitles an accused to bail apply when the investigation's conclusion is based on inadmissible evidence?
- What is the effect of an FIR directly charging the accused and matching medical evidence when police investigation findings are disregarded by the courts?
- Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 324, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 148, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 149, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 379, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 173, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
' SHAFIUR RAHMAN, J.---The three petitioners accused of offences wider sections 302,.324, 148, 149, 379, P.P.C. Seek leave to appeal against the order of the Lahore High Court dated 20-6-1993 whereby their bail application was rejected.
2. An occurrence took place on 9-1-1993 at 3.00 p.m. In which three persons of the complainant party died and two got injuries. Of the three dead, Khan Muhammad deceased had 8 firearm injuries, Sharaf deceased had 11 firearm injuries and Zaman had 8 firearm injuries. Of the injured, Bashir had one firearm injury and Zakir Hussain complainant suffered two firearm injuries. The petitioners were directly charged in the FIR for having fired at them. Notwithstanding this, the successive investigations established the alibi and non-participation of these three petitioners and placed them in column No,2 of the final report under section 173, Cr.P.C. The trial Court as well as the High Court felt not satisfied by such an opinion of the investigation and refused the bail.
3. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and he has by reference to decided cases emphasized that if the investigation itself exonerates the accused, they are entitled to bail.
Undoubtedly that is the principle. The exceptional feature of this case is that the final report of the investigating agency is based only on inadmissible evidence. For determining the participation of the accused in the crime or their absence they have relied on the testimony of the respectables irrespective of the fact whether they were eye-witnesses of the occurrence or not. It is not by reference to the evidence collected and to be presented before the Court by reference to which such conclusion has been drawn but it has been drawn by reference to the material which is not presentable before the Court. In such circumstances the two Courts were justified in refusing the bail and the principle invoked by the learned counsel for the petitioners does not get attracted to the case at all.
4. The charge levelled in the F.I.R., the injuries received by the complainant and the role attributed to the petitioners all consistently make out a prima facie case which did not entitle them to bail notwithstanding the result of such investigation. Hence, no case is made out for interference and leave to appeal is refused.
Cited by 3 cases
- MUHAMMAD KHAN Versus State 2005 PCrLJ 1797
- MUHAMMAD MUSHTAQ Versus THE STATE 2001 PCRLJ 24
- SYED IKHLAQ HUSSAIN SHAH Versus THE STATE 1997 PCRLJ 610