GHULAM FARID vs THE STATE
The petitioner sought post-arrest bail in a murder case registered under Section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, following an FIR in which he was not initially named. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to bail given the weak nature of the evidence presented by the prosecution. The Court observed that the prosecution's case rested primarily on an extra-judicial confession made before the complainant and his son, which is considered a weak form of evidence. Furthermore, the Court noted that the weapon recovered from the petitioner had not been connected to the crime through any Forensic Science Laboratory report. Holding that the prosecution lacked sufficient incriminating evidence at that stage and noting that other suspects remained at large, the Court determined that keeping the petitioner incarcerated for an indefinite period was unjustified. Consequently, the Court granted bail, establishing the principle that where the prosecution's case relies on weak evidence like an uncorroborated extra-judicial confession and lacks forensic connection to the crime weapon, a case for further inquiry is made out, warranting the grant of bail.
- Is an extra-judicial confession made before the complainant and his son sufficient to deny bail?
- Does the absence of a forensic report connecting the recovered weapon to the crime entitle an accused to bail?
- Can an accused be granted bail when the prosecution's case relies solely on weak evidence and lacks forensic corroboration?
- Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
' The petitioner seeks after arrest bail in case F.I.R. No.402 of 2000 dated 15-12-2000 under section 302, P.P.C. Registered at Police Station, Rot 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 outside 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 succumbed to the injuries. The complainant suspected that one Haji Khuda Bukhsh has killed his son or through somebody else got him killed. Consequently the instant F.I.R. Was registered.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner is not named in the F.I.R.; that empties recovered from the place of occurrence were never sent to the Laboratory; that apart from the extrajudicial 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.
Cited by 1 case
- MUHAMMAD ANSAR vs THE STATE 2008 MLD 163