MUHAMMAD ABDULLAH vs THE STATE and anothers
This matter concerns a criminal revision petition filed by the complainant seeking the cancellation of bail granted to the respondent-accused by the Sessions Court in a murder case registered under Section 302/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The accused was alleged to have fatally shot the deceased. The Sessions Court had granted bail based on the defense plea that the deceased was killed while having illicit relations with the accused's sister, suggesting a case of further inquiry. The core legal question was whether the trial court erred in evaluating the defense plea at the bail stage and whether the bail order was legally sustainable. The High Court held that the reasons adopted by the Sessions Court were illegal, noting that the Investigating Officer's conclusion regarding the accused's culpability remained, and the direct allegations in the F.I.R. were supported by witnesses. The court emphasized that the trial court should not prematurely appraise defense pleas at the bail stage. Consequently, the High Court accepted the petition and cancelled the bail, ordering the accused to be taken into custody.
- Can a trial court appraise a defense plea at the bail stage?
- Is the existence of a potential defense plea sufficient to grant bail in a murder case where direct allegations exist?
- Does the presence of conflicting versions regarding the motive for a crime automatically necessitate a case of further inquiry for bail purposes?
- Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 34, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 100, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 103, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
' The allegations against respondent No,1 in case F.I.R. No,88 of 1998, dated 22-3-1998, registered at Police Station Motra, under section 302/34, P.P.C. Is that while armed with .12 bore gun, he fired at Muhammad Ashraf, which fire hit him on his head and as a result of which he died at the spot.
Learned Sessions Judge allowed him bail on 12-4-1999 on the ground that during the investigation it transpires that the deceased was having illicit relations with Mst. Aasia, sister of accused and that the deceased was killed in the house of the accused indicating that he was on an illegal visit.
2. In this cancellation petition it is pleaded by learned counsel for the complainant that the allegations against the respondents are clear and direct and that he is attributed the only fire blow, which proved fatal. He submits that the learned lower Court could not have entered upon the appraisal of defence plea at the bail stage. Learned counsel for respondent No,1 of course supported the impugned order and has relied on section 100 and section 103, P.P.C. To argue that the right to kill the deceased was available in this case. He also pleaded that where two versions are possible it is a case of further enquiry.
3. Learned counsel has supported the cancellation by arguing that after investigation the accused has been challaned.
4. The perusal of the police file particularly Zimni, dated 8-4-1998, does show that number of persons examined by the Investigating Officer stated that the deceased was having illegal connection with Mst. Aasia. However, the Investigating Officer did conclude that it is the respondent-accused, who killed the deceased, may be under provocation. This is not sufficient to belie the direct allegations levelled in the F.I.R. The trial Court will see whether circumstances existed, which justified the killing of the deceased. On the present material, such conclusion is risky.
Prosecution witnesses have supported the allegations levelled in the F.I.R. It is repeated that these are direct and clear allegations.
5. In my opinion the reasons adopted by learned Sessions Judge for grant of bail are illegal.
Resultantly, I accept this application and cancel the to respondent No,
1. I further direct that he be taken in custody to stand his trial.