MUHAMMAD YASEEN and 2 others vs THE STATE
This matter concerns a petition for post-arrest bail filed by three petitioners in a murder case registered under Section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the petitioners were entitled to bail given the nature of the evidence presented, specifically the reliance on an extra-judicial confession and the findings of the investigation. The Court observed that the petitioners were not named in the initial F.I.R., and although they were suspected by the complainant, multiple police investigations had previously found them innocent. Furthermore, the alleged extra-judicial confession was recorded only after the petitioners were already in judicial custody, and the medical evidence (post-mortem and chemical examination) failed to establish the cause of death. Holding that the prosecution's case against the petitioners required further investigation, the Court granted bail. The key principle laid down is that where the evidence against an accused is weak, contradictory, or relies on questionable confessions recorded after arrest, the case falls under the category of further inquiry, justifying the grant of bail under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898.
- Does an extra-judicial confession recorded after the accused is already in judicial custody constitute sufficient evidence to deny bail?
- When does a criminal case qualify for the grant of bail on the grounds of further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Can bail be granted when the initial investigation found the accused innocent but they were subsequently implicated solely on the complainant's insistence?
- Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 497(2), Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
' The petitioners seek bail after arrest in case F.I.R. No.216 of 2003, dated 19-10-2003 registered at Police Station Dhanot, District Lodhran under section 302, P.P.C.
2. According to the complainant, he found the dead body of Shamsher Khan and he suspected that he was murdered by some unknown accused due to personal grudge.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that different police officers investigated the case and found 11 persons as innocent while the petitioners were arrested on 22-12-2003 and sent to judicial lock-up on 4-1-2004. It is further contended that no evidence is available against the petitioners to connect them with the commission of crime. It is also contended that the petitioners were also found innocent during the investigation but on the insistence of complainant party, they have been placed in Column No.2. It is further contended that statement of complainant regarding extra-judicial confession was recorded on 121-2004 by the Investigating Officer, when the petitioners were already behind the bars. It is lastly contended that it is a case of no evidence and nothing was recovered from the petitioners. Hence, they may be released on bail.
4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State opposes this application on the ground that there is evidence in the shape of extra-judicial confession made by the co-accused and present petitioners before the witnesses.
5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and also perused the record. Admittedly the petitioners are not named in the F.I.R. And subsequently the complainant during his statement got recorded on 12-11-2003 had shown suspicion upon 11 persons including the present petitioners that they had murdered the deceased but during investigation conducted by different police officers they let off eight co-accused and sent the petitioners to judicial lock-up on the insistence of complainant party. The only evidence available against the petitioners is that they had made extra-judicial. Confession before the complainant and other witnesses which was brought by the complainant on 12-1-2004 before the police during investigation while the petitioners were already sent to judicial lock-up on 4-1-2004. Even otherwise, the doctor in the postmortem examination had not found any external injury on the persons of deceased and viscera was also sent to the Chemical Examiner but in its report no poison was detected. In such circumstances case of the petitioners is of further inquiry, which is covered by subsection (2) of section 497, Cr.P.C. Hence, this application is accepted and the petitioners shall be released on bail subject to their furnishing bail bonds amounting to Rs.1,00,000 (Rupees one lac only) each with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of learned judicial/Ilaqa Magistrate.