TALIB HUSSAIN vs THE STATE
This matter concerns an application for post-arrest bail filed by accused persons facing trial for murder and related offences. The core legal question was whether the accused were entitled to bail given the prosecution's evidence, the specific roles attributed to them, and the alleged motive. The court held that the bail application must be dismissed. The ratio of the decision rests on the fact that the First Information Report was lodged promptly, clearly identifying the accused and their specific roles, and establishing a clear motive related to a prior matrimonial dispute and habeas corpus proceedings. The court emphasized that the parties were well-known to each other, eliminating concerns regarding mistaken identity. Furthermore, the court held that arguments challenging the medical evidence at the bail stage constitute an impermissible sifting of evidence. Additionally, the court noted that the applicants failed to demonstrate that the delay in the trial was not attributable to their own conduct. Consequently, the court affirmed the trial court's order refusing bail.
- Is it permissible to sift through evidence at the bail stage to determine the veracity of medical reports?
- Does the prompt lodging of an FIR and the identification of the accused by known witnesses preclude the grant of bail?
- Must the accused demonstrate that trial delay is not attributable to them to succeed in a bail application based on delay?
- Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 324, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 147, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 148, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 149, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 13-D, Arms Ordinance 1965
ORDER
' This application has become infructuous, dismissed.
2. Granted but subject to all just exceptions.
3. The facts leading to present application for bail are that applicants/accused Talib Hussain, Wahiyal and Yaseen are facing trial alongwith co-accused before the learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Khairpur, under sections 302, 324, 147, 148 and 149, P.P.C. Read with section 13-D, Arms Ordinance. The case arose out of F.I.R. No,15 of 2002 of Police Station Faiz Gang.
' The brief facts of the prosecution case as disclosed in the F.I.R. Lodged by complainant Ghulam Kambeer on 6-2-2000 are reproduced hereinbelow in extenso:-- "Complaint is that I am Hari. Tonight I and my son Muhammad Yousif were sleeping in our house when at about 1-00 a.m. On the barking of dogs I and my son Muhammad Yousif woke up and saw in the light of lantern 1. Mashooque alias Mashoo son of Azmat Ali Lashari with gun,
2. Talib Hussain son of Azmat Ali Lashari with gun 3. Wahil son of Azmat Ali Lashari with hatchet,
4. Uris son of Misri Lashari with Lathi.
5. Yaseen alias Yasoo son of Misri with Lathi. They trespassed in our house. Accused Mashooque Lashari fired with his gun at my daughter Manzooran and accused Talib Hussain in order to create scare and harass us made fires in the air. Due to fire-arm injury my daughter raised cry and fallen on the ground.
' At that juncture accused Wahial Lashari caused hatchet blow on the head of my daughter.
Accused Uris and Yaseen Lahsari caused her Lathi blows on the left arm and other parts of the body. The bleeding started. Two persons who were not previously known, were standing on the door. I saw them clearly on the light of lantern. I raised cries of 'murder' 'murder'. On my cries and fire reports, Ghazi son of Beharam Mirbahar.
2. Ghulam Hyder son of Ghulam Qasim Rajpar and-others came running. They also saw the culprits in the light of lantern and identified them. Thereafter, accused duly armed fled away towards northern side. After leaving the abovenamed witnesses at the dead body, I have come at police station and complain that about 2 years back I got married my daughter with Talib Hussain Lashari who did not permit Mst. Manzooran to meet us therefore, I filed such petition before the High Court and my daughter Mst. Manzooran was restored to me. The suit for dissolution of marriage was also filed and the same is sub judice in the Court of Civil Judge, Khaipur. Due to odd hours of night and non-availability of conveyance delay has been caused in reporting the incident. The accused because of the abovesaid motive with deadly weapons have committed the crime. The accused Mashooque Ali Lashari caused fire-arm injury, Wahial caused hatchet blow, on her head accused Uris and Yaseen caused Lathi injuries on my arm and other parts of the body due to which I have sustained injuries. Accused Talib Hussain made aerial firing in order to cause harassment. I complain. Justice be made."
' The applicant/accused applied for bail before the trial Court but their bail plea was dismissed by impugned order, dated 27-5-2002.
' I have heard Mr. Shafi Muhammad Chandio on behalf of applicants/accused and Mr. Ghulam Sarwar Korai on behalf of the State. The latter opposed the bail plea of applicants/accused.
' The perusal of the material placed on record shows that the incident occurred on 6-2-2002 at 1- 00 a.m. And on the same night at about 5-00 a.m. The F.I.R. Was lodged at Police Station Faiz Ganj, which is situated at the distance of about 20 kilometres from the place of incident. In the promptly lodged F.I.R., the source of light has been disclosed and names of the applicants/accused and role played by each of them has been specifically mentioned. The motive for the commission of the alleged offence is also disclosed in the F.I.R. The parties are already known to each other, therefore, there would be no question of mistaken identity. The sin of the deceased was that a habeas corpus petition was filed by the 'father of the deceased in this Court and she went with him and subsequently due to the miseries suffered by her at the hands of her husband she filed a suit for dissolution of marriage which is sub judice in the Court. Applicant/accused Talib Hussain and co- accused who are his kith and kin termed it as their insult and in order to avenge they formed an unlawful assembly with common object to equal the score with the deceased. They entered into the house and killed her. The contention that the number of injuries ascribed to applicants/accused Wahiyal and Yaseen are not borne out from the Medical Certificate, therefore, they are entitled to bail is also not tenable as it tantamounts to sifting of evidence at bail stage which is not permissible under law. So far the ground of delay is concerned, nothing has been placed on record from which it could be deduced that the delay in the conclusion of the trial was not occasioned due to any act or omission of the applicants/accused or any person acting on their behalf. Resultantly the bail application stands dismissed.