ZAHID SHAH vs THE STATE
This matter concerns a petition for post-arrest bail filed by the petitioner, Zahid Shah, who is accused of murder under Section 302/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 in F.I.R. No. 265 of 1999. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to bail despite being attributed a specific role in the fatal attack, notwithstanding arguments regarding his alleged innocence during the investigation and the lack of weapon recovery. The Lahore High Court upheld the decision of the Additional Sessions Judge to decline bail. The Court held that the presence of the petitioner at the crime scene was established, and the ocular testimony, which corroborated the medical evidence, outweighed the arguments concerning the non-recovery of the weapon and the petitioner's declaration of innocence by the police. The key principle laid down is that where specific roles are attributed to an accused in a murder case supported by ocular and medical evidence, the absence of weapon recovery or a favorable police investigation report does not automatically entitle the accused to bail, particularly when the offence is punishable with death.
- Does the non-recovery of a weapon entitle an accused to bail in a murder case?
- Can an accused be granted bail if they were declared innocent during the police investigation?
- Is bail appropriate when ocular testimony corroborates medical evidence and attributes a specific role to the accused?
- Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 34, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
' Zahid Shah son of Inayat Ali Shah seeks bail in F.I.R. No,265 of 1999 registered with Police Station Hujra Shah Muqeem under section 302/34, P.P.C. For the murder of Ishfaq Ali.
2. Allegation voiced in the F.I.R. Authored by Abbas Haider is that he alongwith others including his brother Ishfaq Ali were coming from the Dera of Muhammad Ramzan and going towards their house, when they reached near the Dera of Shaukat Ali, all of a sudden assailants including the petitioner armed with .12 bore gun emerged and started raising Lalkaras for siding with Munir Hussain Shah. The attack was commenced by Shaukat Ali who fired with his gun which hit the deceased Ishfaq on his thigh followed by a fire at the hands of the petitioner which struck the deceased on back of left hand. Last fire was made by Ibad Ali Shah which missed the complainant party. Motive for the occurrence is stated to be intent of the complainant party to forcibly occupy the house of Munir Hussain, cousin of the complainant.
3. Post-arrest hail was declined by Additional Sessions Judge. Depalpur on 11-1-2000.
4. Learned counsel before us has contended that no recovery was effected from the petitioner and that he was declared innocent in the investigation. It is further stated that injury being on the hand was not the cause of death, therefore, discretion should be exercised in favour of the petitioner.
Conversely, learned State Counsel has opposed the grant of bail.
5. The Additional Sessions Judge while declining bail specifically observed that during the investigation, presence of the petitioner is established. Non-recovery of weapon would be of no help in the presence of ocular testimony which is in line with the medical evidence. Specific role has been attributed to the petitioner. No ground for interference is made out as offence is punishable with death. Resultantly the application is dismissed.
Cited by 12 cases
- GOHRAM and another vs THE STATE 2012 MLD 1927
- AZIZULLAH NIAZI vs THE STATE 2012 YLR 1071
- NAEEM Shamsheds vs THE STATE 2011 YLR 833
- HAMAL vs THE STATE 2010 MLD 1084
- MUHAMMAD NAWAZ vs THE STATE 2004 YLR 1084
- Dr. SHABBIR HUSSAIN vs THE STATE 2004 P C R L J 609
- Dr. SHABBIR HUSSAIN Versus THE STATE 2004 PCRLJ 609
- NISHAN alias NISHO vs THE STATE 2005 YLR 310
- ALI SHAH vs THE STATE 2002 P Cr. L J 707
- FAIZOO alias FAIZ MUHAMMAD and anothers vs THE STATE 2001 YLR 587
- GODHO vs THE STATE 2001 YLR 603
- AMIR ZAMAN Versus State 2020 YLRN 17