MUHAMMAD SHAFIQUE and 2 others vs THE STATE
The petitioners sought post-arrest bail in case F.I.R. No. 23 dated 22-1-2003 registered under section 302 read with section 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code at Police Station Manga Mandi, District Lahore, for allegedly strangulating an unknown deceased lady after committing Zina with her. The core legal question was whether the petitioners made out a case for further inquiry under section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure when the sole incriminatory evidence against them consisted of police statements recording an extra-judicial confession, which the alleged witnesses subsequently disowned via affidavits. The Lahore High Court held that in view of the affidavits disowning the extra-judicial confession and the petitioners not being named in the F.I.R., the case fell within the scope of further inquiry under subsection (2) of section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. Consequently, the court accepted the petition and admitted the petitioners to post-arrest bail, establishing that conflicting statements regarding an extra-judicial confession at the bail stage warrant further inquiry into the guilt of the accused.
- Does an extra-judicial confession retracted or disowned by way of affidavits at the bail stage make the case one of further inquiry under section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Is an accused person entitled to post-arrest bail when not named in the F.I.R. and the sole connecting evidence is an extra-judicial confession disputed by the alleged witnesses?
- Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 34, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 161, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
' Muhammad Shafique, Muhammad and Muhammad Maqbool the petitioners through the instant petition have sought for post-arrest bail in case F.I.R. No,23 dated 22-1-2003 for offence under section 302 read with section 34, P.P.C. Registered with Police Station Manga Mandi, District Lahore.
2. Briefly the allegation against them is that they had strangulated the unknown deceased lady to death after committing Zina with her.
3. It has been contended on their behalf that they have been falsely roped; that only incriminatory evidence against them on the record is that of statement under section 161, Cr.P.C. Of Muhammad Akbar and Abdul Rehman shown to have been recorded on 25-7-2003 regarding their extra- judicial confession while both these persons have sworn affidavit to the effect that they (petitioners) have not made any such confession before, them and so the case against them requires further inquiry into their guilt (the affidavit of Abdul Rehman son of Sadiq and Muhammad Akbar son of Sadar Din both Gujjar by caste residents of Mauza Bath, Police Station Manga Mandi, District Lahore have been filed); and that they are behind the bars and previous non-convicts.
4. Conversely the learned counsel for the State has opposed the petition on the ground that they have committed 'a heinous crime by committing the Qatl-e-Amd of the unknown deceased lady after committing Zina with her; and that there is evidence of extra-judicial confession against them to connect them with the crime.
5. I have carefully considered the submission made by the learned counsel for the parties with the help of available record.
6. The fact remains that they are not named in the F.I.R. Admittedly except the statement under section 161, Cr.P.C. Of Abdul Rehman and Muhammad Akbar P.Ws., shown to have been recorded on 25-7-2003 regarding their extra-judicial confession 2/3 days after the occurrence, there is no other evidence on the record to connect them with the crime alleged. Their side has placed on the file the affidavit of the afore-mentioned two persons. They in the same have disowned that they (petitioners) have made any such confession of their guilt before them.
7. In these circumstances, the case against them has become as one of further inquiry into their guilt. The same. Therefore, is covered under subsection (2) of section 497, Cr.P.C.
8. 1, therefore, find them entitled to bail. The petition, therefore, is accepted and they are admitted to bail subject to their furnishing bail bond in the sum of Rs,1,00,000 (Rupees one lac) each with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court.