livelawpk.com - The Abscondence alone cannot justify denying bail ---

The Abscondence alone cannot justify denying bail if the evidence warrants otherwise --- Supreme Court of Pakistan

1 month
56

The Abscondence alone cannot justify denying bail if the evidence warrants otherwise --- Supreme Court of Pakistan

Islamabad 16-11-2024: In a significant ruling, the Supreme Court of Pakistan granted post-arrest bail to Mazhar Ali in a Murder Case stemming from an FIR registered in 2013 under Sections 302/34/109 of the Pakistan Penal Code (PPC) at Police Station Asterzai, District Kohat. The apex Court, led by a bench comprising Mr. Justice Jamal Khan Mandokhail, Mr. Justice Musarrat Hilali, and Mr. Justice Malik Shahzad Ahmad Khan, overturned the decision of the Peshawar High Court, which had earlier denied bail.

The FIR was filed on March 24, 2013, a day after the alleged murder of Ali Muhammad Bangash. According to the complainant, a property dispute led to the involvement of the accused, including the petitioner and his co-accused, in the crime. The case saw delays in reporting, inconsistent witness testimony, and a decade-long abscondence by the petitioner, raising questions over the strength of the prosecution’s evidence.

The Court highlighted several deficiencies in the prosecution’s case:

Delayed FIR: The FIR was lodged 13 hours and 50 minutes after the crime, despite the police station being only one kilometer away. The delay was deemed inadequately explained and cast doubt on the prosecution’s narrative.
Unreliable Witness Testimony: The FIR did not initially name any eyewitnesses. Two witnesses, daughters of the deceased, were introduced later, raising concerns about their credibility.
Questionable Identification Parade: The petitioner was named in the FIR before the identification parade, reducing its evidentiary value. The Court referred to Naveed Sattar Vs. The State (2024 SCMR 205), where similar circumstances led to bail.

The petitioner’s 10-year abscondence was considered, but the Court reiterated that abscondence alone cannot justify denying bail if the evidence warrants otherwise. Citing precedents such as Hidayat Khan Vs. The State (2023 SCMR 172) and Ehsanullah Vs. The State (2012 SCMR 1137), the Court emphasized the principle that abscondence must not overshadow the merits of the case.

The Court noted that two co-accused, identified in the same parade and charged with identical allegations, were acquitted by the trial Court. Their acquittal on the same evidence further weakened the prosecution’s case against the petitioner.

The bench converted the petition into an appeal and granted post-arrest bail to Mazhar Ali, subject to furnishing bail bonds of Rs. 100,000/- with one surety to the satisfaction of the trial Court. The Court held that the petitioner was entitled to relief due to procedural deficiencies and the need for further inquiry into the evidence.

This judgment underscores the Supreme Court’s of Pakistan commitment to safeguarding the rights of the accused when evidence lacks clarity or credibility. It also highlights the importance of judicial scrutiny in cases involving delayed FIRs, questionable identification parades, and witness credibility.