HADAYAT ALI vs MUHAMMAD SHAHBAZ
This criminal petition seeks the cancellation of post-arrest bail granted to respondent No. 1 by the Additional Sessions Judge, Lahore, in a murder case registered under Section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code. The core legal question revolves around whether post-arrest bail was rightly granted to an accused who was nominated on the same day via a supplementary statement, found guilty during the investigation, and from whom the weapon of offence was recovered. The Lahore High Court held that the initial non-nomination of an accused in the First Information Report, which merely sets the law into motion, and minor discrepancies do not justify granting bail in a heinous murder case that falls within the prohibitory clause and requires deeper appreciation of evidence. Consequently, the court allowed the petition, cancelled the bail granted to the respondent, and ordered him to be taken into custody to face trial, laying down the principle that non-nomination in the F.I.R. alone is insufficient for bail when subsequent incriminating material and recovery exist.
- Whether non-nomination of an accused in the First Information Report is a sufficient ground for the grant of post-arrest bail in a murder case?
- Can bail be cancelled when the accused is implicated through a supplementary statement on the same day and the weapon of offence is recovered from his possession?
- Does an offence falling within the prohibitory clause bar the grant of bail when deeper appreciation of evidence is required?
- Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
1. ' Through the instant petition, after arrest to Muhammad Shahbaz alias Jee respondent No,1 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Lahore vide order dated 26-7-2001 in case F.I.R. No, 23 of 2001 dated 26-1-2001, under section 302, P.P.C. Registered with Police Station Batapur, has been sought to be cancelled.
2. ' The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner Hadayat Ali got the aforesaid F.I.R. Recorded for murder of his sister Mst. Bashiran Bibi on 26-1-2001. No one was nominated as an accused in the said F.I.R. Subsequently, on the same day, he got recorded his supplementary statement nominating Muhammad Shahbaz alias Jee, respondent No,1 as culprit for the offence. In his supplementary statement, he also nominated two persons namely, Muhammad Bashir and Nazir Ahmad as eye-witnesses of the occurrence.. The accused was arrested and pistol was also recovered from his possession. Five empty cartridges and the pistol have been sent to Forensic Science Laboratory for comparison. Respondent No,1 applied for his after-arrest bail in the said case which was allowed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge vide order dated 26-7-2001 as mentioned above.
3. ' Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued' that it was a case of single accused. Muhammad Shahbaz, respondent No,1 was nominated by the complainant on the same day through Zimni No,15. He was arrested and weapon of offence has also been recovered from his possession and there is no mala fide for his false implication. It was an heinous offence and the respondent has been allowed bail on flimsy grounds. Learned counsel has supplemented his arguments by placing reliance on 1998 SCM R 496, Qadar Mand v. Muhammad Amroze and 4 others 1999 SCM R 1794, Raza Mohsin Qazilbash and others v. Muhammad Usman Malik and another and 2001 PCr.LJ 1420 Muhamamd Saleem v. The State.
4. ' Learned counsel for the State has supported the petition.
5. ' Conversely, the petition has been opposed by the learned counsel representing respondent No,1 by arguing that Muhammad Shahbaz has been falsely implicated after consultation and with deliberation as he was siding with Mst. Bashiran, deceased in a suit filed by her for dissolution of marriage against her husband. Supplementary statement has got no value and no mala fide has been committed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge by granting him bail. Learned counsel has placed reliance on 1995 SCM R 1350, Falak Sher alias Sheru v. The State 1996 SCM R 511, Naeem Akhtar v. State PLD 1995 SC 34, Tariq Bashir and 5 others v. The State and 1999 PCr.LJ 1 Rana Muhammad Safdar v. Gulzar Ali alias Papoo and another.
6. ' I have given due consideration to the contention raised at the bar and perused the record.
7. It is true that Muhammad Shahbaz, respondent was not nominated accused in the F.I.R. But he was implicated by the complainant on the same day by getting supplementary statement recorded through Zimni No,15 dated 26-1-2001, wherein eye-witnesses of the occurrence have also been mentioned. The petitioner has no previous enmity with the accused for his false implication. The respondent/accused was found guilty during the investigation. Weapon of offence was also recovered from his possession. F.I.R. Is not substantial piece of evidence, it is only to put the law into motion. Nothing has been brought on record from the respondent to show any mala fide or previous enmity with the complainant for his false implication. The offence falls under the prohibitory clause. The only ground weighed with the learned Additional. Sessions Judge to grant bail is that respondent was not nominated in the F.I.R. And there is discrepancy in the supplementary statement and the F.I.R., which is hardly a ground for grant of bail in a murder case as it requires deeper appreciation of evidence, therefore, I am persuaded to allow this petition and the to respondent No,1 is cancelled and he is ordered to be taken into custody and lodged in jail to face the trial.
8. Bail cancelled.
Cited by 3 cases
- NAWAZ ALI JATT Versus State 2020 PCrLJN 89
- Mst. SHAMIM KHATOON Versus Syed SHAFIQUE AHMED 2018 PCrLJ 650
- MOHAMMED USMAN Versus ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE 2018 PCrLJN 65