MUHAMMD PERVEZ alias PARVEZ IQBAL vs THE STATE
This matter came before the Lahore High Court through a petition filed by Muhammad Parvez alias Parvez Iqbal seeking post-arrest bail in case F.I.R. No. 66 registered at Police Station Thikriwala, District Faisalabad, for offenses under Section 392 and subsequently added Section 411 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question concerned whether the petitioner was entitled to post-arrest bail in light of the evidentiary value of the material collected during the investigation. The Court held that the case called for further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, noting a delay of a month and a half in lodging the F.I.R., the expression of mere suspicion against the petitioner, the suspect evidentiary value of a joint extra-judicial confession before a Panchayat, the doubtful admissibility of a joint recovery without a specified place, the lack of connection between the recovered pistol and the crime, the completion of investigation rendering physical custody unnecessary, and the absence of similar criminal records. The key principle laid down is that joint extra-judicial confessions and doubtful joint recoveries, coupled with delayed reporting and no requirement for further physical custody, constitute grounds for further inquiry warranting the grant of post-arrest bail.
- Whether a joint extra-judicial confession before a Panchayat carries suspect evidentiary value for granting bail?
- Does the lack of specification of the place of recovery in a memorandum render a joint recovery doubtful?
- Does a delay of a month and a half in lodging an F.I.R. expressing mere suspicion justify further inquiry under Section 497(2), Cr.P.C.?
- Is an accused entitled to post-arrest bail when the investigation is complete and physical custody is no longer required?
- Section 392, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 411, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
' ASIF SAEED KHAN KHOSA, J.---Through this petition Muhammad Parvez alias Parvez Iqbal petitioner has sought post-arrest bail in case F.I.R. No,66 registered at Police Station Thikriwala, District Faisalabad on 24-1-2004 for an offence under section 392, P.P.C. During the investigation section 411, P.P.C. Was added to the F.I.R.
2. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties at some length and after going through the record of investigation of this case with their assistance it has been noticed by me that the F.I.R. In this case had been lodged with a delay of about a month and a half and in the F.I.R. Only a suspicion had been expressed by the complainant against the petitioner and another. The F.I.R.
Also refers to an extrajudicial confession allegedly made by the petitioner and his co-accused before Punchayat. The statements made by Abdul Hameed and Muhammad Arshad P.Ws. Before the Investigating Officer on 24-1-2004 show that the extra-judicial confession allegedly made by the petitioner and his co-accused before the Punchayat was a joint confession. Evidentiary value of a joint extra-judicial confession is quite suspect. The learned counsel for the State has pointed out that during the investigation two motorcycles, one belonging to the complainant and the other belonging to some other person, had been recovered from the petitioner and his co-accused but the memorandum of such recovery does not mention the place from where such recovery had been effected and the same also creates an impression that the alleged recovery was a joint recovery. Admissibility and evidentiary worth of a joint recovery is also quite doubtful. There is nothing available on the record to connect the pistol allegedly recovered from the petitioner's possession with the offence involved in this case. After completion of the investigation a challan has already been submitted before the learned trial Court and, thus, physical custody of the petitioner is no longer required at this stage for the purposes of investigation. The police officer present with the record has categorically stated that no other case of similar nature stands registered against the petitioner at the relevant police station.
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 two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court.