Deeper appreciation of evidence

Deeper appreciation of evidence is not permissible at the bail stage.

Law does not permit deeper appreciation of evidence while deciding bail application but the bail application cannot be decided in vacuum and the court has to look at the material available.

Accused was directly charged for commission of murder of the deceased and the matter was promptly reported to the local police

Accused, soon after getting his interim bail before arrest, had submitted an application for fair investigation and the Investigating Officer had visited the Court premises, recorded statements of all concerned and collected affidavits in respect of plea of alibi

Though plea of alibi could not be outrightly rejected but its genuineness and authenticity was only possible when the matter came before the Trial Court

Appreciating the evidence in respect of plea of alibi could prejudice the case of either side, while on the other hand, it amounted to deeper appreciation of evidence, which was not warranted at bail stage

Accused prima facie seemed connected with the commission of the offence and could not succeed in making out a case for bail

Application was dismissed, in circumstances.

Only tentative assessment is to be made, however, where accused satisfies the Court that there are reasonable grounds to believe that he is not guilty of such offence, then the Court must release him on bail.

Petitioners were arrested for misusing their authorities in allotment of state land and causing loss to government exchequer

Validity

Amount calculated in reference was Rs.3,607,200/- which was recovered with the approval of Senior Member Board of Revenue

Such communication was made by Secretary Land Utilization Department of Government of Sindh

Mutation entry in record of rights was incorporated, pursuant to the orders of Senior Member, Board of Revenue

Karachi Metropolitan Corporation allotted 2322 plots to private persons/industrialist and Board of Revenue granted 149 acres of land to individuals

Was yet to be determined during recording of evidence before Trial Court that land automatically stood resumed to Provincial Government or when payment was made and entries were kept in record of rights and payments were made along with fine

Government of Sindh was keen to resolve the issue and reference had already been filed

Accused persons were no more required for further inquiry

At bail stage only tentative assessment was to be made and deeper appreciation of evidence was not permissible

Accused persons had made out their case of further inquiry as envisaged under S. 497(2), Cr.P.C.

Bail was allowed in circumstances.

Deeper appreciation of evidence of material available on record cannot be undertaken while deciding bail application.

Deeper appreciation of evidence is neither permissible nor warranted at bail stage but at the same time Court is not precluded from tentatively perusing the evidence of eye-witnesses, the recovery, the medical reports to form a tentative opinion to determine whether the accused was prima facie connected with the commission of offence or not.

Petitioner did not join investigation to put his case before investigating officer and claimed to be landlord and principal accused was his tenant

Effect

Such claim was neither borne out from petition nor sustained by any other material

Plea of petitioner required deeper appreciation of evidence to find out candor of what he contended

High Court declined to do deeper appreciation of evidence in Constitutional jurisdiction, in absence of any evidence led in trial on such issue

Prima facie there was sufficient evidence against petitioner and there was no material to show his implication by NAB on account of any disingenuous motive

Pre-arrest bail was declined, in circumstances.

Court while deciding the bail application should take into consideration the available record as the deeper appreciation of evidence is not permissible at bail stage.

Deeper appreciation of evidence is not permissible at bail stage and only tentative assessment of the material collected during the investigation is to be made.

Court had only to make tentative assessment of the record collected by the Investigating Agency to form an opinion about the prima-facie involvement of an accused or otherwise.

Court had only to make tentative assessment of the record collected by the Investigating Agency to form an opinion about the prima-facie involvement of an accused or otherwise.

Deeper appreciation of evidence is not warranted at bail stage as it may prejudice the case of either side, rather the Court should adhere to tentative assessment of the material brought before it.

However, bail applications cannot also be heard in vacuum, rather the Courts seized of the matter should assess the available material brought before them.

Deeper appreciation of evidence at bail stage is not warranted under the law but bail application cannot be decided in vacuum as well.

Deeper appreciation of evidence could not be gone into but a bird-eye view was to be taken of available record to satisfy prima facie, whether the accused was/were connected with the commission of offence or not

Benefit of doubt would go to the accused even at bail stage.

Deeper appreciation of evidence is not permissible at the stage of bail and the same is to be decided tentatively.

Deeper appreciation of evidence was not warranted at bail stage which may cause prejudice to the case of either party at trial.

While deciding bail application, before recording of evidence in the trial Court, only tentative assessment is to be made by the Court and it is not permissible to go into details of evidence in one way or the other which may prejudice the case of either party.

Deeper appreciation of evidence is not permissible at bail stage.

Deeper appreciation or evaluation of evidence at bail stage is neither desirable nor permissible.

Deeper appreciation or evaluation of evidence at bail stage is neither desirable nor permissible.

Petitioners were officers in irrigation department and sought grant of pre-arrest bail against reference before Trial court for misappropriating government funds

Validity

Distinction was to be drawn between ordinary criminal cases and that of corruption

Introduction to National Accountability Ordinance, 1999 elucidated that it was enacted to eradicate 'corruption' and 'corrupt practices' and hold accountable all those persons accused of such practices

High Court declined to extend concession of pre-arrest bail to petitioners subject to deposit of liability for reasons that petitioners caused huge loss to national exchequer and sufficient material was collected against them during investigation

Other contentions raised by petitioners required deeper appreciation of evidence which was not permissible at bail stage

High Court observed that Trial Court had recorded evidence of four witnesses and any findings of High Court on merits of case could prejudice case of either party

National Accountability Bureau (NAB) inquiry was initiated on the orders of the High Court and petitioners could not satisfy the High Court on point of mala fide on part of NAB against petitioners

Grant of pre-arrest bail was an extraordinary remedy in criminal jurisdiction and was diversion of usual course of law

Prima facie, there appeared reasonable grounds for believing that petitioners committed alleged offence in which they were facing reference before Trial Court

Bail was dismissed in circumstances.

Plea raised by petitioner was that he did not receive any benefit and that his CNIC was fraudulently used without his knowledge

Validity

While deciding bail plea of accused, deeper appreciation of evidence was not required

If there was prima facie sufficient evidence against accused, he would not be held entitled for concession of bail

Sufficient evidence against petitioner in form of relevant documents with his signatures thereon, statements of witnesses and relevant Bank account papers were collected by National Accountability Bureau

Out of 22 cited witnesses, 13 witnesses had already been examined and trial was likely to be concluded in near future

Bail was declined in circumstances.

Deeper appreciation of evidence was not permissible at bail stage, rather a tentative assessment of the same had to be taken into consideration.

Accused contended that they were charged for single entry wound and there were no blackening or charring marks on dead body of deceased

Validity

Each and every aspect of case was to be taken up tentatively and deep appreciation of evidence was to be avoided

Two crime empties were recovered from the spot and their having been matched with two pistols recovered from the possession of accused was reasonable ground for believing that accused were guilty of offence punishable with death

Non-existence of blackening or charring marks was to be seen when such issue would come before Trial Court as it required deep appreciation which could not be exercised by the Courts at bail stage

Bail was dismissed in circumstances.

Accused sought bail on the ground that there was negative report of Arms Expert and crime weapon was recovered at his instance from house of co-accused

Validity

Accused was principal accused and he could not be let off on technical grounds like negative report of Arms Expert and recovery of crime weapon at his instance from house of co-accused

Such were pieces of corroborative evidence, connected with material evidence and had no legal effect, if considered independently, from eye witnesses account and medical evidence

Statement of prosecution witness recorded under section 161, Cr.P.C. was available on record which supported allegations contained in F.I.R.

Allegations were further supported by postmortem of deceased

Bail was refused in circumstances.

Accused had allegedly returned a portion of amount to complainant and Trial Court would decide about application of S.406, P.P.C., according to facts and circumstances of the case after recording of evidence

Accused had joined investigation and there were two versions one put forth by complainant and the other by accused

Deeper appreciation of evidence was not warranted at bail stage and it was Trial Court to decide or pass any verdict that which was the correct version and the same required evidence

Complainant never gave any amount to accused, rather there was business bargain of "Ghee" inter se the complainant and accused for distribution purposes, which was based on profit

Matter was prima facie of civil nature and registration of case was an attempt to exert pressure upon accused to gain benefits

Pre-arrest bail was allowed in circumstances.

Court while considering the question for grant of bail to accused was to avoid to discuss at length the main aspects of the prosecution case, as such findings and observations of the court would seriously affect the merits of case of other party; and impact of influence upon Trial Court could not be ruled out

Deeper appreciation of evidence, in circumstances, could not be gone into at bail stage, and tentative assessment of the available evidence be made only to find out as to whether accused was, prima facie, connected with offence or not.