MUHAMMAD SHAFIQ alias RAFIQUE vs THE STATE
The petitioner sought post-arrest bail in a criminal case registered under sections 302, 34, and 109 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 at Police Station Saddar Pakpattan Shard. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was connected to the alleged murder through sufficient incriminating evidence to warrant the denial of bail. The Lahore High Court held that the petitioner was entitled to bail as he was not named in the initial FIR, his involvement was brought through a belated supplementary statement after one and a half months, no motive or recovery was attributed to him, he was found innocent regarding active participation during police investigation, and the extra-judicial confession relied upon was a weak type of evidence. Consequently, the court ruled that the petitioner's case fell within the scope of further inquiry under the law, and admitted him to post-arrest bail subject to surety bonds.
- Whether a petitioner implicated through a belated supplementary statement without motive or recovery is entitled to post-arrest bail?
- Is an extra-judicial confession before a panchayat considered a weak type of evidence at the bail stage?
- Does a finding of innocence by the police regarding active participation constitute a case of further inquiry under criminal law?
- Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 34, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 109, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
' Petitioner seeks bail in case F.I.R. No,28 of 2002, dated 20-1-2002, under sections 302/34 and 109, P.P.C. Registered at Police Station, Saddar Pakpattan Shard.
2. Brief facts of the case as disclosed in the F.I.R. Are that on the night of 20-1-2002, the petitioner was present in the house of his brother-in-law Naik Muhammad alongwith other relatives. At about mid-night, on hearing some noise, the said Naik Muhammad went out in the open yard. After him the complainant and Abbas P.W. Also went out and saw in the electric light that three unknown persons were present. One of them fired with a .30 bore pistol on Naik Muhammad, which hit him on the head, who fell down, whereafter, the accused persons left the place of occurrence. The injured was being removed to the hospital and in way he expired.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends 'that the petitioner was involved in this case later on through a supplementary statement made by the complainant on 10-3-2002; that he was involved on the conspiracy of the murder of Naik Muhammad; 'that no recovery of any incriminating material is attributed to the Petitioner; that no motive is attributed to the petitioner and that only other evidence available against the petitioner is that extra-judicial confession before a Punchayat, which is a very weak type of evidence. It is further contended that the petitioner was found innocent during investigation conducted by the police to the extent of active participation in the offence.
4. On the other hand, learned counsel has opposed the prayer of bail made by the petitioner.
5. I have considered the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties.
6. At this stage, there does not appear to be any sufficient evidence with the prosecution to connect the petitioner with the commission of crime as there is no alleged motive against the petitioner. There is no recovery from him. He is not named in the F.I.R. His active participation in the actual crime is not believed by the police itself. The supplementary statement of the complainant was recorded after about 1-1/2 months. The extra-judicial confession before the Punchayat is a weak type of evidence. In these circumstances, the petitioner's case is one of further inquiry.
Resultantly, he is admitted to bail subject to his furnishing bail Bond in the sum of Rs,50,000 (Rupees fifty thousand only) with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of learned trial Court.