MUHAMMAD JAVED alias JAVED AHMAD alias JAVED vs THE STATE
This matter concerns a petition for post-arrest bail filed by the petitioner, Muhammad Javed, who is charged in an F.I.R. registered for offences under sections 302 and 201 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to bail given the evidentiary material collected during the investigation. The Court observed that the F.I.R. was lodged with a significant delay of two and a half months and that the alleged murder was unwitnessed, with no independent evidence directly linking the petitioner to the crime. Furthermore, the Court noted that the extra-judicial confession of a co-accused implicating the petitioner required further probe, and the recovery of the dead body was not made at the petitioner's instance. Finding that the investigation was complete and the challan submitted, the Court held that the petitioner's continued incarceration served no beneficial purpose. Consequently, the Court admitted the petitioner to bail, establishing the principle that where the prosecution's case relies on evidence requiring further inquiry, bail is appropriate under section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898.
- Does an extra-judicial confession by a co-accused provide sufficient grounds to deny bail to a petitioner?
- Is a significant delay in lodging an F.I.R. a relevant factor for the grant of bail?
- When does a case against an accused fall within the purview of further inquiry under section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 201, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 497(2), Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
' ASIF SAEED KHAN KHOSA, J.---Through this petition Muhammad Javed alias Javed Ahmed alias Javed petitioner has sought post-arrest bail in case F.I.R. No.443 registered at Police Station, Sadar, Okara on 19-9-2003 for an offence under section 302, P.P.C. Read with section 201, P.P.C. Was added to the F.I.R.
2. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and going through the record it has been noticed that the F.I.R. In this case had been lodged with a delay of about two and a half months.
According to the F.I.R. Itself the alleged murder had remained unwitnessed. So far there is no independent evidence available on the record directly connecting the petitioner with the alleged offence. The record shows that a co-accused of the petitioner namely. Mst. Kauser Bibi and allegedly made an extra-judicial confession and in that confession she had also implicated the present petitioner. The worth and evidentiary value of such extra-judicial confession made by the petitioner's co-accused calls for further probe at this stage. The recovery of the dead !Sody was admittedly a private recovery and the same had not been effected from the petitioner's house or at the instance of the petitioner. There is no evidence available on the record to connect the string allegedly recovered from the petitioner's possession with the alleged offence. The challan in this case has already been submitted after completion of investigation and, thus, continued custody of the petitioner in jail is not likely to serve any beneficial purpose at this stage.
3. For what has been discussed above the case against the petitioner calls for further inquiry into his guilt within the purview of subsection (2) of section 497, Cr.P.C. This 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 the learned trial Court.