Syed SHABHAT RAZA ZAIDI vs THE STATE
This matter concerns a bail application filed by an Assistant Professor accused of murder following the death of his wife, Mst. Qaisara Abbas, who died from burn injuries. The core legal question was whether the prosecution's case against the applicant established sufficient grounds to deny bail or if the circumstances warranted further inquiry under the relevant provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The applicant contended that the death was a suicide, citing statements from the deceased and medical personnel exonerating him, alongside remarks from the investigating officer suggesting a lack of strong evidence. The Court, upon a tentative assessment of the record, held that the possibility of suicide could not be ruled out at this stage. Consequently, the Court determined that the case required further inquiry, thereby satisfying the criteria for bail. The Court laid down the principle that where the prosecution's evidence is inconclusive and leaves open the possibility of a non-homicidal death, the accused is entitled to the benefit of further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, and bail should be granted.
- Does a case where the prosecution evidence leaves open the possibility of suicide rather than murder qualify for further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Is a tentative assessment of the prosecution's record sufficient to determine entitlement to bail before trial?
- Section 497(2), Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
1. ' This is an application for bail of the applicant, in a murder case, which occurred in the house of the deceased lady Mst. Qaisara Abbas on 22-9-2003. The report of this incident was not lodged with police prior to 17-10-2003. It seems that on a letter dated 15-10-2003 written by Syed Ali Abbas, father of the deceased lady, from Lahore to the S.H.O. Police Station Mobina Town, Karachi East, the incident was reported to police, who incorporated the letter as F.I.R. Of the aforesaid incident on 17- 10-2003. At the conclusion of the investigation the applicant was challaned for facing trial.
2. ' It has been contended on behalf of the applicant that the applicant is a serving Assistant Professor of Botany in D.J. Science College, Karachi. It is urged that the alleged incident is one of suicide and not murder. Learned counsel for the applicant during the hearing has referred before me various statements (pages 53 to 73) of the Court file, wherein the deceased lady is shown to have stated that the applicant is innocent. Another statement of Medical Officer, Dr. Ahsan Ali of Patel Hospital, Karachi is also referred, which shows that he (doctor) was informed by the deceased lady that she had herself set fire to herself. In yet another statement of S.-I. Nadeem Iqbal, it is disclosed that the deceased lady had declared her husband (applicant) being innocent.
3. Learned counsel has lastly argued that the P.D.S.P. Investigation has in his remarks dated 8-12-2003 disclosed that there was no strong evidence beyond doubt to implicate the accused, but it was thought appropriate to submit the challan for a judicial verdict. Learned counsel lastly submitted that the case against the applicant would call for further enquiry as envisaged under section 497(2), Cr.P.C.
4. ' Mr. Habib Rasheed, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State has not been able to controvert the above contentions and hence does not oppose the bail plea.
5. ' I have heard both the learned counsel and perused the relevant documents. The record of the prosecution file, in its tentative assessment, does not rule out the possibility of the case being one of suicide. Thus, it is yet to be determined at the time of trial when the evidence is recorded, whether the deceased died as a result of suicide or she was killed by setting fire to her by the applicant.
6. ' In such view of the matter, the provisions of section 497(2), Cr.P.C. Are attracted. The applicant seems to be entitled to bail. He is, therefore, allowed bail subject to his furnishing a solvent surety in the sum of Rs,2,00,000 (Rupees two lacs only) and P.R. Bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court.