Azizullah Vernon, MUHAMMAD HAAS vs THE STATE
This matter concerns a bail application filed by the applicants, Muhammad Haas and Azizullah Vernon, who were accused of murder involving the alleged poisoning of a boy named Farzan Ali. The core legal question before the High Court was whether the applicants were entitled to post-arrest bail given the available evidence. Upon reviewing the record, the Court noted that the Chemical Analyser's report returned negative results for the substances tested, and the Special Medical Board found no evidence that the deceased had been administered poison. The prosecution's case rested solely on the testimony of a witness, Mst. Khalida, who alleged that the applicants threatened her. Finding that the medical and chemical evidence did not support the prosecution's theory of poisoning, the Court held that the applicants were entitled to bail. The Court granted the bail subject to the furnishing of sureties, while explicitly reserving the prosecution's right to move for cancellation of bail should they produce fresh, incriminating evidence before the trial court in the future.
- Is an accused entitled to bail when the medical and chemical evidence fails to support the prosecution's theory of the crime?
- Can bail be granted subject to the condition that the prosecution may seek cancellation upon the production of future incriminating evidence?
- Does the testimony of a single witness regarding threats constitute sufficient grounds to deny bail when forensic evidence is negative?
ORDER
1. ' Allowed subject to all just exceptions.
2. Learned counsel appearing for the State has read out the contents of the report of the Chemical Anaylser, in which it is mentioned that the tests performed (for the detection of the substances detailed therein) were found negative, pertaining to the articles referred to him for such analysis and report (fully described in the said report) learned counsel for the State has further read out the contents of the report of Special Medical Board, who examined the deceased boy Farzan Ali and opined that no evidence was found by the said Board to arrive at the conclusion that the deceased boy was administered the poison, in any form, for the purpose of his murder.
2. 'He has further stated that the only evidence against the applicants is that of P.W. Mst. Khalida, who stated that the applicant threatened her to shut her mouth pertaining to the said incident, failing which, she was threatened by them to be poisoned and thereby to be murdered, exactly in the same manner as her son was One to death.
3. 'Accordingly, applicant is admitted to bail with two sureties, each in the sum of Rs, 200,000 and P.R.
4. Bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court, provided that as and when the prosecution is able to produce incriminating evidence against the accused/applicant before the trial Court, it shall be at liberty to move the trial Court for cancellation of to the applicant. revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.
Cited by 1 case
- Mst. BHAGUL vs The STATE 2017 YLR 629