2021 PLP 2017 (SCMR)
MUHAMMAD KHAN — Petitioner Versus IQBAL KHAN and another — Respondents
| Citation | 2021 PLP 2017 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Mazhar Alam Khan Miankhel and Qazi Muhammad Amin Ahmed, JJ |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD KHAN — Petitioner Versus IQBAL KHAN and another — Respondents |
| Primary Law | (a) Penal Code (XLV of 1860), (b) Constitution of Pakistan |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2021 PLP 2017 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: (a) Penal Code (XLV of 1860), (b) Constitution of Pakistan as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2021 PLP 2017 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Mazhar Alam Khan Miankhel and Qazi Muhammad Amin Ahmed, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2021 PLP 2017 (SCMR) (MUHAMMAD KHAN — Petitioner Versus IQBAL KHAN and another — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Salah-ud-Din Malik, Advocate Supreme Court/Advocate-on-record for Petitioner.
- Saleem Ullah Khan Ranazai, Advocate Supreme Court with Respondent No.1 in person and Mahmood Ahmed Sheikh, Advocate-on-Record for Respondent.
- Ms. Aisha Tasneem, Advocate Supreme Court with Ghousullah, SI/I.O. P.S. Pezu Lakki Marwat for the State.
Headnotes / Summary
(Against the judgment dated 20.05.2020 passed by the Peshawar High Court Bannu Bench in Crl. Misc. B.A. No. 205-B of 2020)
S. 302(b)
Constitution of Pakistan, Art. 185(3)
Qatl-i-amd
High Court granted bail to accused on the ground that given the joint role of accused and co-accused, it was far from being clear as to whose shot hit the deceased
Held, that totality of circumstances did not admit space to hypothetically absolve the accused from the indivisibility of his role of being in the community of intention with the allegation of active participation in the crime
Both the accused and co-accused remained away from the law
Accused was arrested after almost four years of the incident, while the co-accused was still at large
In the absence of any investigative analysis or conclusion, there was no occasion for the High Court to itself presumptuously extricate the accused from the web, woven by the identity of circumstances jointly hovering upon both the accused and co-accused
Petition for leave to appeal was converted into appeal and allowed, impugned order of High Court was set-aside and post-arrest bail granted to accused was set aside.
Art. 185(3)
Abscondment
Though absconsion by itself was not proof of guilt nor insurmountably stood in impediment to release of an offender if otherwise a case for grant of bail was made out, nonetheless, it was a circumstance which could not be invariably ignored without having regard to peculiarity of circumstances in each case as there were situations that possibly entailed consequences. Ms. Aisha Tasneem, Advocate Supreme Court with Ghousullah, SI/I.O. P.S. Pezu Lakki Marwat for the State.
Judgment & Decree
QAZI MUHAMMAD AMIN AHMED, J.
Impugned herein is order dated 20.05.2020 by a learned Judge-in-Chamber of Peshawar High Court at Bannu Bench, admitting Iqbal Khan respondent, accused in a case of homicide, to post arrest bail; according to the prosecution, he, on the fateful day, alongwith his brother Ayub Khan, armed with Kalashnikovs, fatally targeted Fazal Rehman, deceased, in the backdrop of an ongoing blood feud; witnesses survived the assault unscathed. Autopsy confirmed solitary fire shot in the left eye with corresponding exit. During spot inspection, the Investigating Officer secured 30 casings of Kalashnikov. The accused avoided arrest, however, the respondent was arrest after almost four years of the incident, co-accused still away from the law. The High Court, ignoring respondent's absconsion, granted him bail on the ground that given the joint role it was far from being clear as to whose shot hit the deceased. A position defended by the learned counsel for the respondent.
2. Heard. Record perused.
3. Totality of circumstances does not admit space, that too, within the restricted scope of tentative assessment to hypothetically absolve the respondent from the indivisibility of his role of being in the community of intention with the allegation of active participation in the crime. Though the absconsion by itself is not proof of guilt nor insurmountably stands in impediment to release of an offender if otherwise a case for grant of bail is made out, nonetheless, it is a circumstance which cannot be invariably ignored without having regard to peculiarity of circumstances in each case as there are situations that possibly entail consequences. In the present case, both the respondents opted to avoid the law; one of them is yet not arrested, thus, in the absence of any investigative analysis or conclusion, there was no occasion for the High Court to itself presumptuously extricate the respondent from the web, woven by the identity of circumstances jointly hovering upon both the accused; the impugned exercise transcends beyond the barriers of tentative assessment; it throws the entire prosecution case to the wind, an option neither contemplated by law nor falling with the remit of "further inquiry"; a case for intervention stands made out. Criminal petition is converted into appeal and allowed; impugned order dated 20.05.2020 is set aside and bail granted to the respondent is cancelled. MWA/M-63/SC Bail cancelled.