Gul Hassan V. The State,
Bench: Abdul Hameed Baloch
📝 AI Summary — Plain-Language Overview
This case concerns a bail application before the Balochistan High Court in a murder case. The applicant, Gul Hassan, was accused, along with absconding co-accused, of shooting and killing the complainant's brother at Dera Murad Jamali following a dispute rooted in prior enmity. He was charged under Pakistan Penal Code provisions dealing with murder, abetment, and common intention, and had already been denied bail once by a trial court.
Before the High Court, his lawyer argued that no specific role had been assigned to him individually, suggesting the matter required further inquiry, which under the law could justify bail.
The court rejected this argument and refused bail. It noted several factors weighing against the applicant: the FIR was lodged promptly after the incident, he was specifically named in it, a weapon was recovered based on information he provided, eyewitnesses implicated him, and medical evidence supported the allegations. Relying on a Supreme Court precedent, the judge held that the mere possibility of further inquiry exists in almost every criminal case and does not, by itself, entitle an accused to bail.
This judgment illustrates how Pakistani courts assess bail requests in serious offenses like murder, emphasizing that strong prima facie evidence, such as prompt FIRs, recoveries, and eyewitness testimony, can outweigh defense arguments about ambiguous individual roles, reinforcing a cautious approach to bail in grave criminal cases.
یہ مقدمہ بلوچستان ہائی کورٹ کے سامنے ایک قتل کے مقدمے میں دائر ضمانت کی درخواست سے متعلق ہے۔ درخواست گزار، گل حسن، پر الزام تھا کہ اس نے فرار ہونے والے دیگر ملزمان کے ساتھ مل کر ڈیرہ مراد جمالی میں مدعی کے بھائی کو گولی مار کر قتل کیا، جس کی وجہ پرانی دشمنی سے جنم لینے والا تنازعہ تھی۔ اس پر پاکستان پینل کوڈ کی ان دفعات کے تحت فرد جرم عائد کی گئی جو قتل، ابیٹمنٹ اور مشترکہ ارادے سے متعلق ہیں، اور ٹرائل کورٹ پہلے ہی اس کی ضمانت کی درخواست ایک بار مسترد کر چکی تھی۔
ہائی کورٹ کے سامنے اس کے وکیل نے دلیل دی کہ اسے انفرادی طور پر کوئی مخصوص کردار تفویض نہیں کیا گیا، جس سے ظاہر ہوتا ہے کہ معاملے کی مزید تحقیق درکار ہے، اور قانون کے تحت یہ بات ضمانت کا جواز بن سکتی ہے۔
عدالت نے اس دلیل کو مسترد کرتے ہوئے ضمانت دینے سے انکار کر دیا۔ عدالت نے کئی ایسے عوامل کی نشاندہی کی جو درخواست گزار کے خلاف تھے: واقعے کے ف
Generated from the full judgment text below — not a substitute for reading the actual opinion.
2020 Y L R 1919 [Balochistan (Sibi Bench)] Before Abdul Hameed Baloch, J GUL HASSAN---Applicant Versus The STATE--- Respondent Criminal Bail Application No.(s) 170 of 2019, decided on 29th October, 2019. Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) --- ----S. 497--- Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 302, 109 & 34---Qatl -i-amd, abetment, common intention--- Bail, refusal of ---Scope ---Accused along with others was alleged to have murdered the brother of complainant ---Accused was nominated in the promptly lodged FIR -- -Weapon was recovered on the pointation of accused ---Medical evidence had, prima facie, supported the allegation leveled against the accused--- Petition for grant of bail was dismissed, in circumstances. Perveen Akhtar v. State 2002 SCMR 1886 rel. Ahsan Rafiq Rana for Applicant. Abdul Mateen, D.P.G. for the State. Date of hearing: 25th October, 2019. ORDER ABDUL HAMEED BALOCH, J. ---Through this application the applicant Gul Hassan son of Muhammad Bakhsh seeks bail in FIR No.61 of 2019 lodged with Police Station City Dera Murad Jamali, District Naseerabad under Sections 302, 109, 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code, 1860 ("P.P.C."). Earlier the bail application filed by the applicant before the Additional Sessions Judge, Naseerabad at Dera Murad Jamali ( "trial court"), was rejected vide order dated 16th October, 2019.
2. Brief facts of the case are that ON 28.05.2019 at about 10:50 a.m. the complainant namely Inayatullah lodged the referred FIR, alleging therein that on the stated date at about 10:20 a.m. he, his brother and relatives on account of personal work were present at Shah Pump situated at Dera Murad Jamali. In the meanwhile, the applicant along with absconding accused persons armed with TT pistols came there, and aimed pistol at his brother with slogan that they will not leave him alive today and started indiscriminate firing. Resultantly his brother received bullet injuries and succumbed at the spot. The compliant further stated that the motive behind the incident is previous enmity and the accused committed murder of his brother on the instigation of Amir Bakhsh and Irfan.
3. I have heard the learned counsel for the applicant, learned DPG and have gone through the record with their able assistance. The perusal whereof reveals that the FIR has been lodged with promptitude. The applicant has been nominated in the FIR. Recovery of weapon has been effected on the pointation of the applicant. The eye -witnesses fully implicated the accused in the commission of offence. Medical evidence prima- facie supported the allegation levelled against the accused in the FIR. The contention of the learned counsel for the applicant that "no specific role has been ascribed to the applicant and case of the applicant falls within the purview of further inquiry as enumer ated under Section 497(2), Cr.P.C." has no force. In this regard the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan on the case of Perveen Akhtar v. State 2002 SCMR 1886 held as under: "Undoubtedly, in such- like cases, it is said that accused has made out a case of fu rther inquiry. In view of the law laid down by this Court in the case of Asmatullah Khan v. Bazi Khan and another (PLD 1988 SC 621) merely for such reason accused would not be entitled for grant of bail because mere possibility of further inquiry which exi sts almost in every criminal case, is no ground for treating the matter as one under section 497(2), Cr.P.C. Thus, in view of above, the Criminal Bail Application No(s). 170 of 2019 is dismissed. Needless to mention here that the observation made hereinabove are meant for disposal of the instant application alone, which shall have no bearing on merits of the case. SA/157/Bal. Bail refused.