MUHAMMAD ASHFAQ vs STATE
This matter concerns a post-arrest bail application filed by the petitioner, Muhammad Ashfaq, who was accused in a murder case registered under Section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to bail given that he was not named in the initial FIR, was implicated only via a supplementary statement recorded one month later, and the weapon recovered from him did not match the injury sustained by the deceased. The Court held that while bail is generally discouraged once a trial has commenced, the court retains discretion to grant relief if the case warrants further inquiry. Finding that the recovery did not prima facie connect the petitioner to the crime and noting the absence of evidence linking him to the theft of the deceased's property, the Court concluded that the petitioner's continued detention was not justified. Consequently, the Court admitted the petitioner to bail, establishing the principle that bail may be granted during trial if the prosecution's case lacks sufficient prima facie connection between the accused and the alleged offense.
- Can bail be granted in a murder case after the trial has commenced?
- Does the lack of a nexus between the recovered weapon and the injury sustained by the deceased constitute grounds for further inquiry in a bail application?
- Is a supplementary statement recorded one month after the FIR sufficient to establish a prima facie case for the purpose of denying bail?
- Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
Muhammad Ashfaq petitioner seeks bail in a case FIR No, 101 dated 4.8.2003 for an offence under Section 302 PPC registered at Police Station Fateh Shah District Vehari.
2. Brief facts of the case as narrated in the FIR lodged by Syed Shah Hussain complainant are that on 3.8.2003, his cousin Muzaffar Hussain Shah went to buy the things of daily use at Burewala, who never returned. On the next morning the complainant alongwith witnesses went for his search.
When they reached near a Khal of Chak No, 331-EB adjoining to the metalled read, they saw Muzaffar Hussain lying there and motor-cycle was on his legs. He also had a fire-arm wound on his chest who was murdered by some unknown person. After about one month of the registration of FIR, the complainant got recorded his supplementary statement wherein he involved the petitioner.
3. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is not named in the FIR, in fact it was a blind murder and the petitioner was involved through a supplementary statement of the complainant recorded after about a month's time; that the injury on the deceased person was that of Pistol while the recovery effected from the petitioner is of 12 bore gun which, by no means can correspond to the said injuries.
4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State assisted by the learned counsel for the complainant contends that there are other five cases of theft and illegal possession of weapons registered against the petitioner at the same police station; that the petitioner had killed a man with the intention to take away his valuables as he is already involved in such type of cases; and that the trial has commenced and statements of five PWs have been recorded.
5. I have considered the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties.
6. Generally if the trial has commenced in murder cases, the matter should be left to be decided by the trial Court but if the circumstances so warrant that the person should not be detained any further and his case falls within the parameters of further inquiry, then he can be allowed bail. In the instant case, recovery prima-facie does not connect the petitioner with the crime. He is not named in the FIR. There is no allegation against him that he deprived the deceased person from any monetary or valuable thing including the motor-cycle. Keeping in view the above circumstances, the petitioner is admitted to bail subject k his furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs, 50,000/- (rupees fifty thousand only) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court.