The Supreme Court of Pakistan has ruled that at the bail stage, courts cannot disregard authenticated official records that raise serious doubts about the prosecution's case. The Court emphasized that the subsequent nomination and identification of an accused person require careful scrutiny.
Judgment Details
A two-member bench, comprising Justice Jamal Khan Mandokhail and Justice Irfan Saadat Khan, allowed the pre-arrest bail appeal of Jamshed Rashid and set aside the Lahore High Court's Multan Bench decision. The judgment noted that the appellant was not named in the original FIR and was implicated several days later through a supplementary statement.
Arguments Presented
Counsel for the appellant argued that the accused had traveled to Saudi Arabia after the occurrence, and official travel records confirmed his presence abroad. In contrast, the prosecution maintained that he had subsequently been identified locally.
Court's Observations
The Supreme Court observed that nominating a person through a supplementary statement is, by itself, considered weak evidence, especially when not supported by independent and reliable material. The Court held that travel documents and other available material warranted further examination of the prosecution's stance.
Furthermore, the judgment stated that three co-accused nominated in the same case had already been granted bail. Therefore, under the principle of consistency and equal treatment, the appellant was also entitled to the same relief.
Purpose of Pre-Arrest Bail
The Court observed that the purpose of pre-arrest bail is to protect citizens from mala fide actions, abuse of authority, and unnecessary arrest. It held that, in light of the available record, the appellant was entitled to the benefit of further inquiry.
Decision
Consequently, the Supreme Court converted the petition into an appeal, allowed it, and restored the pre-arrest bail of Jamshed Rashid subject to furnishing surety bonds of Rs100,000 along with one surety in the like amount. The Court clarified that the observations made in the judgment were tentative and would not influence the final determination of the case during trial.
