2020 SCMR 2089
2020 SCMR 2089
(Appellate Jurisdiction)
PRESENT:
Mr. Justice Faisal Arab
Mr. Justice Sajjad Ali Shah
Sidra Abbas
…Petitioner(s)
Versus
The State and another
…Respondent(s)
reasons:-
deceased Mureed Abbas seeks leave of this Court against the order
the High Court to enlarge the respondent Adil Zaman on bail was
that he was merely present at the scene of crime and that no active
role was assigned to him, but the fact remains that the respondent
unknown man joined the main accused, Atif Zaman, at the time
when he was escaping from the scene after firing at Khizer Hayat,
hold of Atif Zaman’s hand in which he was holding pistol and the
from his grip. Per counsel it is an active role and sufficient material
was not taken into consideration by the High Court while upsetting
the order of the Trial Court. The counsel further argued that it has
also been established that the pistol used in the crime was
his licensed pistol, again this fact which prevailed with the Court of
Vs. Laiq Zada and another (2020 SCMR 1115), Khiyal Saba and
Criminal Petition No.105-K of 2020 -: 5 :-
another Vs. The State and others (2020 SCMR 340) and Nadeem
Vs. The State and another (2016 SCMR 1619). The counsel asserts
that since the respondent has not misused the concession of bail,
Umar Rehan, stated that respondent, Adil Zaman, has helped the
concession is established.
concession on the ground of its misuse but on the ground that the
record which was made basis of bail declining order and which
than the concept of cancelling the bail on the ground that the
was that there is nothing against him except his presence which
Zaman with his brother Atif Zaman, the principal accused at both
the crime scenes where two murders one after the other within a
short span of half an hour were committed, coupled with the fact
that both the accused are real brothers and the pistol used in the
High Court that the only allegation against respondent No.2 is his
facilitation to the respondent, Adil Zaman, both in his 161 and 164
with the Court of first instance to decline the bail to the petitioner.
Dilawar 2009 SCMR 1202 and Ehsan Akbar v The State 2007
cases, then the Court of Appeal while reversing such order cannot
simply ignore the reasoning which prevailed with the Court of first
not simply ignore the reasoning prevailed with the Court for
11. In this case, the High Court not only ignored the
reasons that prevailed with the Court of first instance for refusing
the concession of bail to the accused, Adil Zaman, but also did not
Indeed, the conclusion of the Court of first instance that there was
with the commission of crime could not have been upset on the
allowing the same, cancel the bail granted to the respondent, Adil
to observe that the trial Court would be free to decide the main
12. These are the reasons of our short order of even date
Judge
Judge
Karachi, the
10th of September, 2020
Not approved for reporting
A. Rehman