AMEER ALI vs THE STATE
This petition for post-arrest bail arises from F.I.R. No. 45 registered at Police Station Green Town, Lahore, involving charges under Section 302, Section 392, and Section 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question is whether the petitioner is entitled to bail in an unwitnessed murder case where the prosecution relies primarily on an inadmissible confession and a disputed recovery. The Court held that the petition should be allowed, granting the petitioner post-arrest bail. The Court reasoned that the F.I.R. was unwitnessed, no culprit was nominated, and the confession made to the police was inadmissible in evidence. Furthermore, the recovery of a motorcycle did not link the petitioner to the deceased, and a co-accused facing similar allegations had already been granted bail. The key principle laid down is that where the prosecution case lacks direct evidence, relies on inadmissible confessions, and where a similarly situated co-accused has been granted bail, the principle of consistency dictates that the petitioner should also be admitted to bail pending trial.
- Is a confession made by an accused person while in police custody admissible as evidence?
- Does the principle of consistency require that a petitioner be granted bail if a co-accused with a similar case has already been released?
- Can bail be granted when the prosecution relies on evidence that requires further probe at the trial stage?
- Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 392, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 34, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
' Through this petition Ameer Ali petitioner has sought post-arrest bail in case F.I.R. No.45 registered at Police Station Green Town, Lahore on 25-1-2003 for an offence under section 302, P.P.C. During the . Investigation sections 392 and 34, P.P.C. Were added to the F.I.R.
2. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and going through the documents appended with this petition it has been noticed that the occurrence in this case had taken place during night and according to the F.I.R. Itself the alleged murder had remained unwitnessed. No culprit had been nominated in the F.I.R. It is not disputed that there is no direct evidence available in this case positively incriminating the petitioner in the alleged murder and robbery and the prosecution is mainly relying upon a confession allegedly made by the petitioner before the police and a recovery of a motorcycle from his custody during the investigation of this case. It goes without saying that a confession made by an accused person during his custody with the police is inadmissible in evidence. The motorcycle allegedly recovered from the petitioner's possession during the investigation did not belong to the deceased. The worth and evidentiary value of such a recovery shall be gone into by the learned trial Court at the time of the trial and the same surely calls for further probe at this stage. A co-accused of the petitioner namely Mst. Shakeela Bibi has already been admitted to post-arrest bail by this Court vide order dated 24-11-2003 passed in Criminal Miscellaneous No.7048-B of 2003. It is not denied that the case against the said co- accused is not dissimilar to or distinguishable from the case against the present petitioner as far as the merits of the case are concerned. There is, thus, no reason why the petitioner may not be treated in the matter of bail in the same manner as the said co-accused.; The petition is, therefore, allowed and the petitioner is admitted to bail subject to furnishing bail bond in the sum of Rs.50,000 (Rupees fifty thousand only) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of IA the learned trial Court.