AGL 7.99 Decreased By ▼ -0.01 (-0.13%)
ANL 11.22 Decreased By ▼ -0.10 (-0.88%)
AVN 84.96 Increased By ▲ 1.51 (1.81%)
BOP 6.08 Increased By ▲ 0.23 (3.93%)
CNERGY 5.78 Decreased By ▼ -0.07 (-1.2%)
EFERT 80.15 Increased By ▲ 0.05 (0.06%)
EPCL 65.94 Decreased By ▼ -1.35 (-2.01%)
FCCL 15.00 Decreased By ▼ -0.20 (-1.32%)
FFL 7.06 Increased By ▲ 0.02 (0.28%)
FLYNG 7.60 Decreased By ▼ -0.17 (-2.19%)
GGGL 11.70 Decreased By ▼ -0.20 (-1.68%)
GGL 17.40 Decreased By ▼ -0.25 (-1.42%)
GTECH 9.26 Increased By ▲ 0.08 (0.87%)
HUMNL 7.23 Increased By ▲ 0.03 (0.42%)
KEL 3.43 Decreased By ▼ -0.07 (-2%)
LOTCHEM 30.37 Decreased By ▼ -0.58 (-1.87%)
MLCF 28.49 Decreased By ▼ -0.03 (-0.11%)
OGDC 84.84 Decreased By ▼ -0.36 (-0.42%)
PAEL 16.89 Decreased By ▼ -0.22 (-1.29%)
PIBTL 6.05 Decreased By ▼ -0.10 (-1.63%)
PRL 19.84 No Change ▼ 0.00 (0%)
SILK 1.26 Decreased By ▼ -0.03 (-2.33%)
TELE 12.04 Decreased By ▼ -0.01 (-0.08%)
TPL 9.06 Decreased By ▼ -0.10 (-1.09%)
TPLP 20.24 Increased By ▲ 0.05 (0.25%)
TREET 26.81 Decreased By ▼ -0.29 (-1.07%)
TRG 97.60 Increased By ▲ 0.30 (0.31%)
UNITY 22.85 Increased By ▲ 0.02 (0.09%)
WAVES 13.22 Decreased By ▼ -0.07 (-0.53%)
WTL 1.45 No Change ▼ 0.00 (0%)
BR100 4,335 Decreased By -26.4 (-0.61%)
BR30 15,981 Decreased By -27.6 (-0.17%)
KSE100 43,271 Decreased By -210.9 (-0.48%)
KSE30 16,399 Decreased By -77 (-0.47%)

ISLAMABAD: The Supreme Court observed that malafide being a state of mind cannot always be proved through direct evidence, and it is often to be inferred from the facts and circumstances of the case. A three-judge bench headed by Justice Manzoor Ahmed Malik, observed that in judgment of a murder case.

On December 7, 2019 at about 12am, three persons were shot dead on GT Road in Ferozewala, District Sheikhupura.

Five brothers and three unknown persons were nominated in the first information report (FIR) to be the assailants; while their sixth brother, Qaisar, a petitioner, and their father were nominated as abettors, alleged to have instigated and conspired the murders.

Accused Qaisar, the alleged abettor, approached the Sessions Court, for pre-arrest bail. However, the Sessions Court turned down the petitions. He later filed an appeal in the Lahore High Court (LHC), which also dismissed them. The accused; therefore, impugned the high court order dated 03.03.2020 before the apex court.

The Supreme Court noted that the high court has declined the relief of pre-arrest bail to the petitioner making the observation that pre-arrest bail is an extraordinary relief and can only be extended to an innocent person who is implicated in the case on the basis of malafide, but the petitioner has failed to point out to any malafide.

The SC judgment said the LHC did not appreciate that the ‘malafide’ being a state of mind cannot always be proved through direct evidence and it is often to be inferred from the facts and circumstances of the case.

It further said the investigating officers should not mechanically make the arrest of a person accused of having committed a cognizable offence, rather they must exercise their discretion in making the arrest of such person judiciously by applying their mind to the particular facts and circumstances of the case and consciously considering the question: what purpose will be served and what object will be achieved by arrest of the accused person?

The power of high courts and the courts of sessions to grant pre-arrest bail, first and foremost, must be examined in the constitutional context of liberty, dignity, due process, and fair trial.

Pre-arrest bail is in the nature of a check on the police power to arrest a person. The non-availability of incriminating material against the accused or non-existence of a sufficient ground including a valid purpose for making arrest of the accused person in a case by the investigating officer would as a corollary be a ground for admitting the accused to pre-arrest bail, and vice versa.

The judgment noted that in the instant case the petitioner along with his father were in Saudi Arabia for performing Umra when the occurrence took place. No doubt, managing one’s presence in a foreign country at the time of actual commission of an offence may be a tactic to escape criminal liability for being involved in the commission of that offence as abettor or conspirator; but the court must base its conclusion as to involvement of an absentee accused as abettor or conspirator on some solid material collected during the course of investigation, and not on surmises or conjectures, either tentatively at bail stage or finally at judgment stage.

The apex court admitted the petitioner to pre-arrest bail to save him from unjustified arrest, consequent humiliation and the curtailment of his right to liberty.

Copyright Business Recorder, 2021


Comments are closed.