PLJ 2025 SC (Cr.C.) 142
[Appellate Jurisdiction]
Present: Yahya Afridi, CJ and Shahid Waheed, J.
versus
STATE thr. A.G. Islamabad and another--Respondents
Crl. P.L.A. No. 588 of 2024, decided on 3.2.2025.
(Against the order dated 20.05.2024 passed by the Islamabad High Court, Islamabad in Criminal Misc. No. 840-B of 2024)
Criminal Procedure Code, 1898 (V of 1898)--
ضمانت قبل از گرفتاری برائے مدعا علیہ منظور کی گئی تھی - تنسیخ ضمانت - خارج کر دی گئی - مبینہ طور پر مدعا علیہ نے گالیاں دیں اور قتل کرنے کی نیت سے ان پر فائرنگ کی - ایک گولی اس کی بائیں ٹانگ پر لگی جس سے وہ زخمی ہو گیا - ہائی کورٹ نے جائے وقوعہ سے کسی بھی جرم کی خالی گولی برآمد نہ ہونے کا نوٹس لیا - اس میں کوئی تنازعہ نہیں تھا کہ مدعا علیہ سے کچھ بھی برآمد نہیں ہونا باقی تھا، کیونکہ مبینہ طور پر جرم کے ارتکاب میں استعمال ہونے والا ہتھیار پہلے ہی پولیس نے دوران تفتیش قبضے میں لے لیا تھا - مدعا علیہ کا موقف جوابی بیان میں بیان کیا گیا، ریکارڈ پر دستیاب مواد کے وزن کے مطابق ہونا چاہیے - استغاثہ اس مرحلے پر مدعا علیہ کو مبینہ جرم کے ارتکاب سے جوڑنے کے لیے کافی مجرمانہ مواد پیش کرنے میں ناکام رہا ہے - اسے جرم سے جوڑنے کے لیے کوئی کافی مجرمانہ مواد نہیں ہے، حقائق اور حالات کے تحت قبل از گرفتاری ضمانت کی منظوری درست تھی - دوسری درخواست ضمانت کا غیر مجاز ہونا ایک غلط فہمی ہے، کیونکہ اس نے نہ تو مدعا علیہ کو کسی اعلیٰ فورم کے سامنے نئی درخواست ضمانت دائر کرنے سے روکا اور نہ ہی ہائی کورٹ کو آزادانہ طور پر کیس کا جائزہ لینے اور جہاں ضروری ہو ریلیف دینے سے منع کیا - اپیل کی اجازت کی درخواست بے وزن پائی گئی؛ لہذا اسے خارج کر دیا گیا اور اپیل کی اجازت دینے سے انکار کر دیا گیا۔
----Ss. 497(5) & 498--Pakistan Penal Code, 1860 (XLV of 1860), Ss. 324 & 337-F(ii)--Arms Ordinance, 1965 ( of 1965), S. 13(d)--Pre-arrest bail was granted to respondent-accused--Cancellation of bail--Dismissal of--The respondent-accused allegedly hurled abuses at them and, with intention to kill, fired at them--One of shots struck on his left leg, causing him to sustain an injury--High Court took note of absence of any crime empty recovered from place of occurrence--There was no dispute nothing remained to be recovered from respondent-accused, as weapon allegedly used in commission of offence had already been taken into possession by police during investigation--Stance of respondent-accused narrated in cross-version, observation to be in accordance with weight of material available on record--The prosecution has at this stage failed to present sufficient incriminating material to connect respondent-accused with commission of alleged offence--No sufficient incriminating material to connect him to offence, grant of pre-arrest bail was justified in facts and circumstances of case--Second bail petition to be not competent is misconceived, as it neither precluded respondent-accused from filing a fresh bail petition before a higher forum nor barred High Court from independently assessing case and granting relief where warranted--The petition for leave to appeal is found meritless; same is therefore dismissed and leave to appeal declined. [Pp. 143 & 144] A, B, C, D, E, F, G
Criminal Procedure Code, 1898 (V of 1898)--
بد نیتی کو ہمیشہ براہ راست ثبوت سے ثابت نہیں کیا جا سکتا اور اکثر اسے مقدمے کے حقائق اور حالات سے اخذ کیا جاتا ہے۔
----S. 498--Mala fide--Mala fide cannot always be proved through direct evidence and is often to be inferred from facts and circumstances of case. [P. 144] E
PLD 2021 SC 708 ref.
Mr. Riaz Hanif Rahi, ASC and Syed Rifaqat Hussain Shah, AOR for Petitioner.
Ms. Chand Bibi, DPG, Islamabad, Mr. Kaleem Ullah, SHO and Mansab Dar, SI/Investigating Officer for State.
Date of hearing: 3.2.2025.
Order
Yahya Afridi, CJ.--The petitioner-complainant seeks leave to appeal against the order of the Islamabad High Court dated 20.05.2024 (“impugned order”), whereby pre-arrest bail was granted to the respondent-accused in case FIR No. 308, dated 28.03.2024, registered at Police Station Sangjani, Islamabad, for the offences under Sections 324 and 337-F(ii) of the Pakistan Penal Code, read with Section 13(d) of the Arms Ordinance.
2. According to the FIR, the occurrence allegedly took place on 27.03.2024 at about 8:45 p.m. when Hasham Saeed and Shahzad Saeed, sons of the petitioner-complainant, were on their way home. They were intercepted by the respondent-accused, who was armed with a pistol. The respondent-accused allegedly hurled abuses at them and, with the intention to kill, fired at them. One of the shots struck Hasham Saeed on his left leg, causing him to sustain an injury.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner-complainant contends that a nine years old child has been injured and his rights have not been properly considered in the impugned order. He further argues that the fact that the respondent-accused was armed with a weapon at the time of the occurrence shows his intent to commit the crime. Additionally, he submits that the impugned order has not taken into account the essential requirements for the grant of pre-arrest bail, in particular the element of mala fide on the part of the complainant party. He also maintains that since the pre-arrest bail petition of the respondent-accused was dismissed for non-prosecution and his second pre-arrest bail petition was held not competent by the Sessions Court, the High Court ought not to have entertained the bail petition of the respondent-accused.
4. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner-complainant and the learned Deputy Prosecutor-General, Islamabad and going through the record, we observe that the High Court took note of the absence of any crime empty recovered from the place of occurrence. The High Court also observed that there was no dispute regarding the fact that nothing remained to be recovered from the respondent-accused, as the weapon allegedly used in the commission of the offence had already been taken into possession by the police during the investigation. Further, the High Court observed that a tentative assessment of the incriminating material, when considered alongside the stance of the respondent-accused narrated in the cross-version, prima facie indicated that the case fell within the ambit of further inquiry. We find this observation to be in accordance with the weight of the material available on record and not contrary to it. The prosecution has at this stage failed to present sufficient incriminating material to connect the respondent-accused with the commission of the alleged offence.
5. As regards the contention that mala fide was not properly considered, it is important to note that mala fide cannot always be proved through direct evidence and is often to be inferred from the facts and circumstances of the case.[1] Since the High Court found no reasonable grounds to justify the arrest of the respondent-accused and no sufficient incriminating material to connect him to the offence, the grant of pre-arrest bail was justified in the facts and circumstances of the case.
6. The argument that the High Court ought not to have entertained the bail petition after the Sessions Court found the second bail petition to be not competent is misconceived, as it neither precluded the respondent-accused from filing a fresh bail petition before a higher forum nor barred the High Court from independently assessing the case and granting relief where warranted.
7. The learned counsel for the petitioner-complainant has not been able to show that the impugned order is either perverse or against any settled principle of the law of bail, warranting interference by this Court. The petition for leave to appeal is found meritless; the same is therefore dismissed and leave to appeal declined.
(A.A.K.) Appeal dismissed
0 Comments