The Supreme Court of Pakistan recently made a significant ruling that clarifies several important legal principles regarding the grant of bail in criminal cases. This decision, involving a murder charge, highlights the judiciary’s careful approach to ensuring justice by scrutinizing the evidence before trial.
The Core of the Case: A Delayed FIR and Unnamed Witnesses
The case stemmed from a tragic incident in 2013 where an individual was fatally shot. The First Information Report (FIR), however, was filed nearly 14 hours after the event. The court found this delay particularly puzzling because several family members of the complainant were present at the scene. Consequently, the court questioned the reason for waiting so long to involve the police, especially since the police station was just one kilometer away.Grant of Bail in Murder Cases
Initially, the FIR did not mention any eyewitnesses. In fact, it described the event as an unwitnessed crime. Surprisingly, the very next day, the prosecution presented two eyewitnesses—the daughters of the deceased. The Supreme Court found this development unusual. It logically reasoned that if these sisters were indeed present and witnessed the crime, their brother, who filed the FIR, would have certainly named them in his initial report. This inconsistency cast a shadow of doubt on their sudden appearance as eyewitnesses.Grant of Bail in Murder Cases
The Problem with Identification After Nomination
Furthermore, the court emphasized a critical legal point. The petitioner and his two brothers were already named as the accused in the FIR. The subsequent identification of the petitioner by the witnesses in a parade, after his name was already in the official record, therefore lost some of its credibility. The court ruled that this issue needed deeper investigation during the full trial, making it a classic case for “further inquiry” – a valid ground for granting bail under the law.
The Acquittal of Co-Accused: A Powerful Precedent
A very compelling factor in the petitioner’s favor was the fate of his co-accused. His two brothers, who were also named in the FIR and identified by the same witnesses, had already been tried and acquitted by the trial court. The prosecution’s evidence against them was deemed insufficient for a conviction. The Supreme Court noted that the case against the petitioner was identical to that of his now-acquitted brothers. The only difference was that the petitioner had been absconding. This precedent strongly suggested that the prosecution’s case was weak.Grant of Bail in Murder Cases
Absconding Alone is Not a Barrier to Bail
Finally, the court addressed the issue of the petitioner’s absconding. While he had evaded arrest for a decade, the court firmly reiterated a well-established legal principle. Mere absconding, by itself, is not a sufficient reason to deny bail if the accused can otherwise make a case for it on the merits. The primary focus must remain on the strength of the evidence, not the conduct of the accused after the alleged crime.
Conclusion: A Victory for Scrutinized Evidence
In conclusion, the Supreme Court’s decision to grant bail was a balanced and reasoned application of legal principles. The ruling underscores that bail is a rule and jail is an exception. The court prioritized a meticulous examination of the evidence, identifying critical flaws like the delayed FIR, the questionable introduction of eyewitnesses, and the tainted identification process. This judgment, therefore, serves as an important guide for understanding how courts assess bail petitions in serious crimes, ensuring that personal liberty is not curtailed without solid, credible evidence.
For professional assistance with criminal law services and related legal matters, contact:
Muhammad Amin, Advocate
📞 Phone: 0313-9708019 | 0335-1990495
📧 Email: muhammadaminadvo111@gmail.com