livelawpk.com - The Abscondance alone is not Sufficient Ground to Deny Bail

The Abscondance alone is not Sufficient Ground to Deny Bail --- Supreme Court of Pakistan

4 months, 2 weeks
209

The Abscondance alone is not Sufficient Ground to Deny Bail --- Supreme Court of Pakistan

Islamabad, 07-08-2024: The Supreme Court of Pakistan has granted post-arrest bail to Zeeshan, son of Gul Hussain, in a high-profile murder case. The decision, delivered by Mr. Justice Naeem Akhtar Afghan and Mr. Justice Shahid Bilal Hassan, overturns the Peshawar High Court's previous denial of bail.

Zeeshan was implicated in FIR No. 1039/23, lodged at Police Station Faqirabad, Peshawar, on August 20, 2023. The complainant, Qaiser Jamal, alleged that Zeeshan, along with co-accused Sher Ali and Shahab Kamal, fired upon Qaiser and his family members, resulting in the death of Qaiser's brother, Shahid Jamal, and injuries to his son, Haider Jamal.

The Court highlighted several key points in its judgment:

1. Absence of Injury Statement: There was no injury statement or medical report for the alleged injury to Haider Jamal.

2. No Firearm Recovery: The investigation did not recover any firearms from the petitioner.

3. Trial Status: The investigation has concluded, and the trial has commenced with charges read to the accused, but prosecution witness statements are yet to be recorded.

4. Bail Granted to Co-Accused: Co-accused Syed Shahab Ali Shah had already been granted post-arrest bail, establishing a precedent for consistency.

The Court noted that Zeeshan had been an absconder for almost seven months but ruled that this alone was not sufficient grounds to deny bail. The lack of concrete evidence and the need for further inquiry into the case justified granting bail. Zeeshan is required to furnish a surety bond of Rs. 200,000 along with a personal recognizance bond of the same amount to the satisfaction of the trial court.

The Supreme Court emphasized that the observations made in this bail order are tentative and should not influence the trial's outcome. The ruling marks a significant development in this ongoing legal battle, reflecting the Court's cautious approach towards ensuring justice while upholding legal principles of consistency and fair inquiry.