Inayat Ullah V. The State,
Bench: Sardar Ahmed Haleemi
📝 AI Summary — Plain-Language Overview
This case involves a bail application filed by Inayat Ullah, who was accused in a shooting incident in Dera Murad Jamali, Balochistan. According to the FIR, the applicant and several co-accused allegedly opened indiscriminate gunfire on a shop, killing two people and critically injuring two others, including a passerby. The applicant was specifically accused of firing shots that contributed to the deaths.
The applicant sought post-arrest bail, arguing he was innocent, falsely implicated, that no weapon was recovered from him, and that witness statements were recorded 25 days after the incident without explanation, and that investigation was complete so his continued detention was unnecessary.
The Balochistan High Court rejected the bail application. It held that the delay in recording witness statements could not by itself justify bail, especially since the murder charge under section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code is a non-bailable offence. The court emphasized that at the bail stage, only a tentative assessment of the evidence is permissible, not a deep evaluation of its merits. Based on this tentative assessment, the court found that the FIR and witness statements prima facie connected the applicant to a serious, non-bailable crime involving firing that led to loss of life.
This case illustrates how Pakistani courts handle bail requests in murder cases, showing that courts require substantial justification before releasing someone accused of a serious, non-bailable offence like murder, and that procedural delays alone are usually insufficient grounds for bail.
یہ مقدمہ عنایت اللہ کی طرف سے دائر کی گئی ضمانت کی درخواست سے متعلق ہے، جو ڈیرہ مراد جمالی، بلوچستان میں پیش آنے والے فائرنگ کے ایک واقعے میں ملزم تھا۔ ایف آئی آر کے مطابق، درخواست گزار اور کئی دیگر شریک ملزمان نے ایک دکان پر اندھا دھند فائرنگ کی، جس کے نتیجے میں دو افراد ہلاک اور دو دیگر شدید زخمی ہوئے، جن میں ایک راہ گیر بھی شامل تھا۔ درخواست گزار پر خاص طور پر یہ الزام تھا کہ اس کی فائرنگ ہلاکتوں کا سبب بنی۔
درخواست گزار نے حراست کے بعد ضمانت کی درخواست دیتے ہوئے دلیل دی کہ وہ بےگناہ ہے اور اسے جھوٹا ملزم بنایا گیا ہے، اس سے کوئی اسلحہ برآمد نہیں ہوا، گواہوں کے بیانات واقعے کے پچیس دن بعد بغیر کسی وضاحت کے قلمبند کیے گئے، اور تحقیقات مکمل ہو چکی ہیں لہٰذا اس کی مزید حراست میں رکھنا غیر ضروری ہے۔
بلوچستان ہائی کورٹ نے ضمانت کی درخواست مسترد کر دی۔ عدالت نے قرار دیا کہ گواہوں کے بیانات قلمبند کرنے میں ت
Generated from the full judgment text below — not a substitute for reading the actual opinion.
2023 P Cr. L J Note 93 [Balochistan (Sibi Bench)] Before Sardar Ahmed Haleemi, J INAYAT ULLAH ---Applicant Versus The STATE--- Respondent Criminal Bail Application No. (s) 127 of 2022, decided on 12th August, 2022. (a) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) --- ----Ss. 497& 161--- Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 302, 324, 147, 148 & 149---Qatl -i-amd, attempt to commit qatl -i-amd, rioting, armed with deadly weapon, common object ---Bail, refusal of --- Examination of witnesses by police ---Delayed statements ---Scope ---Accused along with others was alleged to have murdered two persons ---Accused was implicated with specific role of firing as a result of which two persons had lost their lives and two were critically injured ---Alleged delay in recording statements of the injured/eye -witnesses under S. 161, Cr.P.C., could not be made basis to grant bail to the accused--- Offence under S. 302, P.P.C., was not bailable in nature ---Tentative assessment of the material available on record prima facie revealed incriminating evidence connecting the accused with the commission of a heinous non- bailable offence---Bail application was rejected, in circumstances. [Paras. 9 & 10 of the judgment] Allah Bakhsh v. The State 2005 PCr.LJ 698; Habib and another v. The State 2009 YLR 1456 and Khadim Hussain v. The State 2013 PCr.LJ 938 distinguished. (b) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) --- ----S. 497--- Bail---Tentative assessment ---Scope ---Deeper appreciation of evidence at bail stage is not permissible under the law and only tentative assessment of the material on record is to be made. [Para. 10 of the judgment] Haji Gul Khan v. Gul Deraz Khan and others 1995 SCMR 1765 ref. Ghulam Farooq Mengal for Applicant. Rahib Khan Buledi for the Complainant. Muhammad Younus Mengal, D.P.G. for the State. Date of hearing: 5th August, 2022. ORDER SARDAR AHMED HALEEMI, J. ---Through this bail application, the applicant (accused) seeks his post -arrest bail in case bearing FIR No.69/2022 dated 24.04.2022 registered under sections 302, 324, 147, 148, 149, P.P.C. with Police Station City Dera Murad Jamali.
2. The precise facts narrated in the FIR by the complainant Qadir Bakhsh son of Muhammad Hashim are that on the day of occurrence he along with his brothers namely Khair Muhammad alias Khair Jan and Shafqat Ali were present in their shop situated in main bazar near "Al -Noor Shopping Centre" in the name and style of Al -Yousuf Cloth House Dera Murad Jamali; his old customer Shahal Khan son of Muhammad Murad with his nephew Ali Dost were busy in buying fabric; in the meanwhile at about 12:00 p.m., the accused persons Inayatullah (applicant), Muhammad Sharif, Muhammad Gul, Barfee Khan, Sawan Khan, Ahmed Din, Jan Muhammad by caste Lehri with firearms came to his shop and made Lalkara/challenged that today they will kill them; they started indiscriminate firing upon them, due to which his brother Khair Muhammad alias Khair Jan. Shafqat Ali and customer sustained bullet injuries and fell down, while he and Shahal Khan were miraculously saved; the accused continued firing due to which one passerby Mureed Ali son of Muhammad Qasim sustained bullet injuries, while his brother Abdul Rasheed miraculously saved from any firearm injury; later on, his brother Khair Muhammad alias Khair Jan and .customer Ali Dost succumbed to the injuries. The accused persons Jan Muhammad, Inayatullah and Sawan Khan fled away in their car bearing registration No.AXD -128, while Muhammad Sharif, Ahmed Din, Barfee Khan and Muhammad Gul decamped on their motorcycles.
3. After registration of FIR, the applicant was arrested. On completion of investigation the applicant was remanded to judicial custody.
4. The applicant filed bail application No. 263 of 2022 for grant of post arrest bail before the court of learned Additional Sessions Judge Nasirabad at Dera Murad Jamali which was declined vide order dated 04.07.2022. Hence, this bail application.
5. Learned counsel for the applicant contended that applicant is innocent and has no concern with the alleged offence; no specific role has been attributed to the applicant; the applicant has falsely been implicated in the instant case with mala fide; no recovery has been effected from his possession during the investigation: statements of eye -witnesses were recorded after delay of 25 days without explanation; investigation has been completed and he is no more required for further probe. Learned counsel for the applicant relied upon the case of Allah Bakhsh v. The State 2005 PCr.LJ 698, Habib and another v. The State 2009 YLR 1459, Khadim Hussain v. The State 2013 PCr.LJ 938.
7. Learned counsel for complainant and learned DPG strongly opposed the grant of post arrest bail to the applicant on the ground that in the promptly lodged FIR, the applicant has been nominated with role of firing; two persons were murdered and two were injured; delay in statements of eye -witnesses has been reasonably explained; section 302, P.P.C. is non- bailable offence; the applicant has not been falsely implicated; bail application filed by co - accused Jan Muhammad has been rejected by learned Additional Sessions Judge Nasirabad at Dera Murad Jamali.
8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties as well as learned DPG at length and have gone through the available record with their able assistance.
9. According to the contents of FIR and statements of eye -witnesses, the applicant has been implicated in the instant case with specific role of firing as a result of which two persons lost their life and two were critically injured; the alleged delay in recording statements of the injured/eye -witnesses under section 161, Cr.P.C. cannot be made a basis to grant bail to the applicant at this stage; the offence under section 302, P.P.C. is not bailable in nature.
10. The deeper appreciation of evidence at bail stage is not permissible under the law and only tentative assessment of the material on record is to be made. Reliance in this regard is placed on the case of Haji Gul Khan v. Gul Deraz Khan and others 1995 SCMR 1765. Tentative assessment of the material available on record prima facie reveal of incriminating evidence connecting the applicant with the commission of a heinous non-bailable offence The judgments relied upon by learned counsel for the applicant are distinguishable and same are not attracted in the facts and circumstances of the instant case. For the above reasons, the bail application is rejected. The observations made herein above are tentative in nature and same shall not influence the merits of the case at the trial. SA/171/Bal. Bail declined.