In murder case post arrest bail granted by Supreme Court .In murder case post arrest bail granted by Supreme Court .

In murder case post arrest bail granted by Supreme Court .

سپریم کورٹ نے قتل کے مقدمے میں بعد از گرفتاری ضمانت دی

تمہیدی تعارف

سپریم کورٹ آف پاکستان نے اختر ولد گل ضمیر کی درخواست پر سماعت کے بعد فیصلہ دیا کہ اسے بعد از گرفتاری ضمانت دی جائے۔ یہ کیس پشاور ہائی کورٹ کے فیصلے کے خلاف اپیل کی صورت میں آیا، جس میں ہائی کورٹ نے درخواست گزار کی ضمانت مسترد کر دی تھی۔

مقدمے کا پس منظر

خواص خان نے 11 دسمبر 2022 کو ایف آئی آر نمبر 1177/2022 درج کرائی، جس میں کہا گیا کہ اس کے بھائی پردول خان کو نامعلوم افراد نے قتل کیا۔ بعد ازاں 15 دسمبر 2022 کو اس نے سیکشن 164 Cr.P.C کے تحت بیان میں درخواست گزار کو ملوث قرار دیا، مبینہ طور پر متوفی اور درخواست گزار کے سابقہ جھگڑے کی بنیاد پر۔

درخواست گزار کا موقف

درخواست گزار کے وکیل نے دلیل دی کہ ایف آئی آر میں اس کا نام نہیں تھا، نہ کوئی عینی شاہد موجود ہے اور نہ کوئی ریکوری ہوئی۔ کیس میں مزید تحقیقات زیر غور ہیں اور شریک ملزمان کی ضمانت ہو چکی ہے، اس لیے اسے بھی ضمانت دی جائے۔

ریاست اور شکایت کنندہ کا موقف

ایڈیشنل ایڈووکیٹ جنرل نے موقف اختیار کیا کہ تفتیش کے دوران درخواست گزار کو قصوروار پایا گیا۔ اس کے بھائیوں کے پاس سے ایک پستول برآمد ہوا، جس کی فرانزک رپورٹ جرم سے متعلق ہے۔ تاہم درخواست گزار کے پاس سے پستول برآمد نہیں ہوئی اور سی سی ٹی وی فوٹیج سے وقوعہ کا پتہ نہیں چلا۔

عدالتی جائزہ

عدالت نے نوٹ کیا کہ درخواست گزار کا نام ایف آئی آر میں شامل نہیں تھا اور کوئی عینی شاہد موجود نہیں۔ برآمد شدہ پستول اس سے نہیں ملا اور سی سی ٹی وی فوٹیج بھی جائے وقوعہ سے نہیں تھی۔ قانونی نقطہ نظر سے، پولیس کے سامنے کیا گیا مبینہ اعتراف قابل قبول نہیں، جیسا کہ قانون شہادت آرڈر 1984 کے آرٹیکل 38 اور 39 میں درج ہے۔ عدالت نے کہا کہ کیس مزید تفتیش کا محتاج ہے اور درخواست گزار کے خلاف جرم کی تصدیق صرف ٹرائل کورٹ میں شواہد کے ریکارڈ کے بعد ہو سکتی ہے۔

قانونی اصول برائے ضمانت

عدالت نے واضح کیا کہ ضمانت دینے یا مسترد کرنے میں بنیادی اصول یہ ہے کہ جہاں تفتیش کے دوران مواد سے معقول شک پیدا ہو، ملزم کو ضمانت دی جا سکتی ہے۔ ضمانت سزا نہیں بلکہ ملزم کو مقدمے کا جواب دینے کا حق فراہم کرنے کا ذریعہ ہے۔ ملزم ہر صورت میں بے قصور سمجھا جائے جب تک کہ اسے مجاز عدالت جرم ثابت نہ کرے۔

عدالتی فیصلہ

سپریم کورٹ نے درخواست کو اپیل میں تبدیل کر کے منظور کیا اور اختر ولد گل ضمیر کو بعد از گرفتاری ضمانت دی۔ ضمانت 2,00,000 روپے کے مچلکے کے ساتھ اور ایک سا ضمانت دہندہ کی موجودگی میں دی گئی۔ عدالت نے کہا کہ ضمانت فوری طور پر دی جائے جب تک کہ کسی اور مقدمے میں اس کی ضرورت نہ ہو۔

اہم قانونی سبق

بعد از گرفتاری ضمانت کے لیے ضروری ہے کہ شواہد کے مجموعی جائزے سے معقول شک پیدا ہو۔ ایف آئی آر میں نام شامل نہ ہونا، عینی شاہد کی غیر موجودگی، اور ریکوری کی کمی ضمانت دینے کی مضبوط بنیاد فراہم کرتی ہے۔ قانون کا بنیادی مقصد ملزم کو غیر ضروری قید سے بچانا اور اسے مقدمے کا دفاع کرنے کا حق دینا ہے۔

Must read Judgement

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PAKISTAN

(Appellate Jurisdiction)

PRESENT:

MR. JUSTICE JAMAL KHAN MANDOKHAIL

MR. JUSTICE MUHAMMAD ALI MAZHAR

MR. JUSTICE SYED HASAN AZHAR RIZVI

CRIMINAL PETITION NO.1054 OF 2023

(On appeal from the judgment dated 09.08.2023

passed by the Peshawar High Court, Peshawar in

Cr.M(B.A) No.2414-P/2023)

Akhtar s/o Gul Zameer …Petitioner

VERSUS

Khwas Khan and another ...Respondents

For the Petitioner:

Mr. Sher Aman Khan, ASC

For the State:

Mr. Altaf Khan, Addl. AG, KPK

Mr. Ziarat Gul, SI, Mardan

For Respondent No.1:

In-Person

Date of Hearing: 23.10.2023

[

Order

MUHAMMAD ALI MAZHAR, J:- This Criminal Petition is directed

against the Order dated 09.08.2023, passed by the learned Peshawar

High Court in Cr.M(B.A) No.2414-P/2023 whereby the application

moved for post-arrest bail was dismissed.

2. The complainant lodged FIR No. 1177/2022 on 11.12.2022 under

Sections 302, 201, 120-B and 109 of the Pakistan Penal Code, 1860

(“PPC”), and Section 15 of the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa (KPK) Arms Act,

2013 (“Arms Act”) at Police Station Rustam, District Mardan.

According to the minutiae of the First Information Report, the

complainant Khawas Khan initially reported the incident to the local

police against the unknown persons and alleged that on the day of

occurrence he was present in his block factory where he received

Crl.P.No.1054/2023

-2-

information about the murder of his brother, namely Pardul Khan,

who was killed after being fired at by unknown persons. He thereafter

rushed to the hospital where he found his brother dead. The

complainant, having no enmity or animosity, reported the incident to

the local police against unknown accused persons for the murder of

his brother. The record further reflects that on 15.12.2022, the

complainant appeared before the Judicial Magistrate-II, Mardan for

recording his statement under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal

Procedure, 1898 (“Cr.P.C.”) in which he implicated the petitioner for

the murder of his brother, allegedly on account of a previous quarrel

between the deceased and petitioner. After the arrest of the petitioner,

the alleged involvement of two co-accused, Inzar Gul and Ali Bahadar,

also came to the surface during the investigation, revealing that Inzar

Gul, the paternal uncle of the deceased, paid head money to Ali

Bahadar, the co-accused, who hired the petitioner for committing the

murder on the motive of abduction of Mst. Bakht Bibi, niece of Inzar

Gul.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner argued that no reasonable

grounds exist to connect the petitioner with the commission of the

offence. No such allegation was leveled by the complainant in the FIR

against the petitioner, rather, later on, with consultation and

deliberation, the petitioner was charged for the commission of the

offence. It was further contended that neither anything was recovered

from the petitioner, nor any specific role has been attributed to the

accused, nor is there any eye witness of the occurrence. He further

argued that the investigation has been completed which itself revealed

that the case was one of further inquiry. He further averred that the

other co-accused in the instant case have already been released on

bail, hence the present accused is also entitled to the concession of

bail on the rule of consistency.

4. The learned Additional Advocate General for KPK argued that during

the investigation the petitioner was found guilty. He further argued

that when the petitioner absconded, a 30 bore pistol was recovered

from his brothers, Muzamil and Ajab Khan, from a common abode

and, according to Forensic Report, two crime empties were fired from

the same pistol, hence a separate FIR No.1208/2002 was also lodged

against Muzamill and Ajab Khan under Section 15 of the Arms Act at

Police Station Rustam, District Mardan. However, he admits that

Crl.P.No.1054/2023

-3-

neither the said pistol was recovered from the present petitioner, nor

he has been implicated in the subsequent FIR. He further relied on a

picture of a motor bike captured through CCTV footage, showing the

petitioner sitting on the back seat thereof; however he admitted that

this picture was not captured from the scene of the crime.

5. Arguments heard. It is an admitted position that the name of the

petitioner is not mentioned in the FIR which was against some

unknown persons. There is also no eye witness of the incident. The

pistol was recovered in the absence of the petitioner, from his brother,

for which a separate FIR has been lodged. Even if the empties

recovered from the scene of the crime are matched, it is to be seen by

the Trial Court after recording evidence whether the bullets were shot

by the petitioner or not. Reliance on a single picture captured from a

CCTV system cannot be treated as a substantial piece of evidence at

this stage, rather it is subject to the evidence, as may be recorded by

the Trial Court, whether it has any nexus to the scene of crime. The

FIR was lodged on 11.12.2002 against unknown persons but on

15.12.2022 the complainant, by means of statement recorded under

Section 164, Cr.P.C., implicated the petitioner on the ground that

there was a quarrel between the deceased and the petitioner, which

alleged incident was in the knowledge of the complainant, but no such

indication or disclosure was made while lodging the FIR. According to

the investigation, the petitioner disclosed to the police that Ali Bhadur

paid head money for the deceased and the head money was given by

Inzar Gul for payment to the petitioner. Ali Bahdur was already on bail

while Inzar Gul was granted bail by this Court vide Order dated

09.06.2023 in Criminal Petition No.352/2023. So far as the alleged

confession of the petitioner before police during investigation is

concerned, the niceties of Article 38 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order

1984 are quite lucid that no confession made to a police officer shall

be proved as against a person accused of any offence, while Article 39

emphasizes that, subject to Article 40, no confession made by any

person whilst he is in the custody of a police officer, unless it be made

in the immediate presence of a Magistrate, shall be proved as against

such person. Seemingly, a confession made before the police is not

made admissible by dint of the aforesaid provisions of the Qanun-eShahadat Order 1984 in order to preserve and safeguard the

philosophy of safe administration of criminal justice and is also based

Crl.P.No.1054/2023

-4-

on public policy. In the aforesaid backdrop, we are sanguine that the

case of petitioner requires further inquiry to prove his guilt which can

only be thrashed out after recording of evidence in the Trial Court.

6. It is a well settled notion of law that further inquiry is a question

which must have some nexus with the result of the case for which a

tentative assessment of the material on record is to be considered for

reaching a just conclusion. It pre-supposes the tentative assessment

which may create doubt with respect to the involvement of the accused

in the crime. The law of bails is not a stagnant law but is developing

with the exigencies of time. The expression "reasonable grounds" as

contained under Section 497, Cr.P.C., necessitated the prosecution to

show that it is in possession of sufficient material or evidence to

demonstrate that accused had committed an offence falling within the

prohibitory limb of Section 497, Cr.P.C. However for seeking the

concession of bail, the accused person has to show that the material

or evidence collected during investigation against him creates

reasonable doubt or suspicion in the prosecution case. While deciding

bail applications, it is the foremost duty of the Courts to apply a

judicious mind tentatively for reaching the just and proper conclusion

regarding whether reasonable grounds are made out or not to enlarge

the accused on bail, and the expression ‘reasonable grounds’ signifies

and corresponds to the grounds which are legally rational, acceptable

in evidence and attractive to the judicial mind, as opposed to being

imaginative, fallacious and/or presumptuous. Whenever reasonable

doubt ascends with regard to the involvement of an accused person in

the crime or about the certainty or probability of the prosecution case

and the evidence proposed to be produced in support of the charge in

Court during trial, the accused should not be deprived of the benefit of

bail and it would be better to keep him on bail than in jail. The basic

idea is to enable the accused to answer the criminal prosecution

against him rather than to make him rot behind bars. The accused is

entitled to expeditious access to justice, which includes the right to a

fair and expeditious trial without any unreasonable or inordinate

delay. Certain basic principles regarding grant or refusal of bail are

settled i.e. that bail cannot be withheld as punishment; every person is

presumed to be innocent unless found guilty by a competent court;

every person is entitled to a fair trial, which includes a trial without

inordinate delay; and that the basic philosophy of criminal

Crl.P.No.1054/2023

-5-

jurisprudence is that the prosecution has to prove its case beyond

reasonable doubt and this principle applies at all stages including the

pre-trial stage, and even at the time of deciding whether the accused is

entitled to bail or not.

7. This Criminal Petition for leave to appeal was fixed for hearing on

23.10.2023 when the same was converted into appeal and allowed vide

our short order, which is reproduced as under:

“For the reasons to be recorded later, this petition is

converted into an appeal and allowed. The petitioner is

granted post-arrest bail subject to his furnishing surety

bond in the sum of Rs.2,00,000/- with one surety in the

like amount to the satisfaction of the Trial Court. He shall

be released forthwith if not required in any other case.”

8. Above are the reasons assigned in support of our short order. The

observations made in this order are tentative in nature and shall not

prejudice the case of either party in the Trial Court.

Judge

For more information call us 0092-324-4010279 Whatsapp Dear readers if u like this post plz comments and follow us. Thanks for reading .as you know our goal is to aware people of their rights and how can get their rights. we will answer every question, so we need your help to achieve our goal. plz tell people about this blog and subscribe to our youtube channel and follow us at the end of this post.