GHULAM FARID vs STATE
The petitioner sought post-arrest bail in case FIR No. 402/2000 registered under Section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 at Police Station Kot Mubarik, District Dera Ghazi Khan. The core legal question was whether the petitioner made out a case for further inquiry under the criminal procedure governing bail, given that the prosecution's case rested primarily on a weak extra-judicial confession and an unconnected weapon recovery. The Lahore High Court held that since the sole evidence against the petitioner was an extra-judicial confession made before the complainant and his son—which is considered a weak type of evidence—and the recovery of the crime weapon was not yet linked to the offense due to the absence of a Forensic Science Laboratory report, while co-suspects remained at large, keeping the petitioner incarcerated indefinitely would be unfair. The court ruled that the petitioner successfully made out a case for further inquiry and admitted him to post-arrest bail, establishing the principle that an unverified extra-judicial confession coupled with unlinked recoveries against an un-named accused warrants further inquiry for the grant of bail.
- Does an uncorroborated extra-judicial confession before a complainant constitute sufficient ground to withhold post-arrest bail?
- Whether the absence of a Forensic Science Laboratory report connecting a recovered weapon to the crime makes out a case for further inquiry?
- Can an accused not named in the FIR be kept in continuous incarceration when co-suspects remain at large and primary evidence is weak?
- Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
The petitioner seeks after arrest bail in case FIR No, 402/2000 dated 15.12.2000 u/S. 302 PPC registered at P.S Kot Mubarik District Dera Ghazi Khan.
2. Brief facts of the case are that on the day of occurrence complainant was present in his house, suddenly he heard the firing out side his house. An alarm being raised by his son Abid Hussain. He ran towards him where other witnesses were also attracted and found Abid Hussain in injured condition. He took him to the Hospital. On the way Abid Hussain sccumbed to the injuries. The complainant suspected that one Haji Khuda Bukhsh has killed his son or through some body else got him killed. Consequently the instant FIR was registered.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner is not named in the FIR; that empties recovered from the place of occurrence were never sent to the Laboratory; that apart from the extra judicial confession before the complainant and his son there is no other incriminating evidence with the prosecution against the petitioner; that although 30 bore pistol has been allegedly recovered from the petitioner but this pistol is not connected with the offence as well, and that the petitioner is behind the bars for the last about six months.
4. Learned State counsel has opposed this bail petition by contending that the petitioner is prime suspect in the case; that in view of his confession before the witnesses he is connected with the offence.
5. I have considered the arguments of learned counsel for the parties.
6. Since at present the prosecution is not in possession of any evidence against the petitioner apart from his extra judicial confession that too, before the complainant and his son which is otherwise very week type of evidence. The recovery of crime weapon from the petitioner is prima facie not connected with the commission of offence as yet, no report of Forensic. Science Laboratory is with the prosecution. As stated by learned State counsel two suspects in this case are still at large, therefore, it would be unfair to keep the petitioner behind the bars for unlimited period. In the circumstances of the case the petitioner has successfully made out a case for further inquiry.
Consequently he is allowed bail in the sum of Rs, 50,000/-with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of trial Court.