ALLAH DITTA vs THE STATE
The petitioner sought post-arrest bail in a criminal case registered under Section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, relating to a murder where the dead body of the deceased was found with firearm injuries. The core legal question involved whether the circumstantial evidence, including extra-judicial witness statements regarding the last seen circumstance and subsequent recoveries of a cycle and a gun upon the petitioner's pointation, warranted the grant of post-arrest bail. The Lahore High Court dismissed the bail petition, holding that deep appreciation of circumstantial evidence is not permissible at the bail stage, and noting that the petitioner was implicated in another criminal case and that the trial had already commenced and was fixed for prosecution evidence. The key principle laid down is that where circumstantial evidence connects the accused to the crime and the trial is at an advanced stage, bail should be refused as deep appreciation of evidence is reserved for the trial court.
- Whether post-arrest bail can be granted when the accused is connected to the crime through circumstantial evidence such as last-seen witnesses and recoveries?
- Is deep appreciation of circumstantial evidence permissible at the bail stage?
- Does the commencement and progression of a trial constitute a ground to refuse post-arrest bail in a murder case?
- Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 394, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
Petitioner Peeks post-arrest bail in case F.I.R. No.521 of 1999 dated 27-8-1999 registered under section 302, P.P.C. At Police Station Saddar Arifwala District Pakpattan Sharif.
2. Brief facts of the case are that on 27-8-1999 Muhammad Rafique deceased had a round of land to see his crops. He did not return and his dead body was found on the road near tubewell of Fakhar-ud-Din. Deceased received fire-arm injuries Muhammad Afzal informed to the complainant son of the deceased who reported the matter. The case was registered against unknown person on the statement of Ghulam Mustafa. During the investigation Ghulam Abbas and Muhammad Bashir P.Ws. Disclosed to the investigating Officer that they had seen the accused going on cycle of the deceased immediately after the occurrence. The accused was arrested and on his pointation .12 bore gun was recovered from his house as well as cycle. Petitioner is also involved in another case F.I.R. No.140 of 1996, dated 8-5-1996 under section 394, P.P.C. Police Station Khudian. The accused was arrested on 31-12-1999. Challan was submitted and case is fixed for prosecution evidence for 25-8-2000.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that there is no direct 'evidence against the petitioner. Evidence of Ghulam Abbas and Muhammad Bashir was recorded on 22-9-1999. The recovery of cycle and gun themselves are not sufficient to connect him with the crime.
4. Learned counsel for the complainant as well as the State have opposed the grant of bail.
5. Heard. Record perused. Although the petitioner is not named in the F.I.R. Arid there is no direct evidence yet complainant or P.Ws. Are not inimical against the accused. Worth of evidence of Ghulam Abbas and Muhammad Bashir who saw the accused riding on the cycle of the deceased immediately after the occurrence will be examined by the trial Court. Cycle of the deceased was recovered from the petitioner. Similarly on his pointation the gun was recovered from his house. He stands implicated in another case F.I.R. No.140 of 1996 dated 8-5-1996. The trial has already commenced and the case is fixed for prosecution evidence for 25-8-2000. Deep appreciation of circumstantial evidence is.Not possible at this stage. Since the trial has commenced I see no ground to admit the petitioner to bail at this stage. The petition has no merit and is dismissed.
Cited by 2 cases
- Muhammad Behroz Khan vs The State through Prosecutor General Punjab 2024 YLR 1854
- ISRAR CHAUDHARY Versus State 2019 PCrLJN 16