NOOR SAMAND vs THE STATE
This matter concerns a petition for post-arrest bail filed by the accused, Noor Samand, in connection with a criminal case registered under Sections 302, 452, 148, and 149 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 F.I.R., was implicated only through a belated supplementary statement without explanation, and had been declared innocent by the police during the investigation. The Court held that the petitioner is entitled to bail, observing that the supplementary statement lacked a credible basis for the delayed naming of the accused. Furthermore, the Court noted the absence of direct evidence, the reliance on a weak extra-judicial confession, and the fact that no recovery was effected from the petitioner. Emphasizing that the petitioner had been declared innocent by the police and was no longer required for investigation, the Court granted the bail application, establishing that where the prosecution's case rests on weak evidence and police investigation has cleared the accused, continued incarceration is unjustified.
- Is a supplementary statement sufficient to implicate an accused who was not named in the initial F.I.R. for the purpose of denying bail?
- Does a police report declaring an accused innocent constitute a valid ground for granting post-arrest bail?
- What is the evidentiary value of an extra-judicial confession at the bail stage?
- Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 452, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 148, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 149, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
' MUHAMMAD NAWAZ BHATTI, J.---The petitioners seeks post-arrest bail in case F.I.R. No,130 dated 7- 5-2005 registered under sections 302, 452, 148 and // 149, P.P.C. At Police Station Dera Rahim, District Sahiwal.
2. According to the F.I.R., Noor Samand accused/petitioner was maternal cousin and neighbour of the complainant. On 6-5-2005, he along with his family members had gone to enquire after the health of his wife's brother in Chak No,87 and Riaz alias Liaqat Ali slept in his house to look after the same. The complainant and his brother Sher alias Shoka slept in their own house. In between the night of 6th and 7th of May, 2005 at about 1-00 or 2-00 a.m. (midnight), hue and cry was heard whereupon the complainant and his brother Sher woke up and rushed to the house of Noor Samand. Allah Ditta son of Muhammad Sharif also reached there. They saw that five unknown persons scaled over the western wall of the house and could be identified if produced before them.
They entered in the house of Noor Samand and saw that Raiz alias Liaqat Ali, son of the complainant, was bathed in blood and he had received an incised wound on the left side of his neck and he had died. The other village-mates also reached.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the petitioner is not named in the F.I.R. But later on supplementary statement was recorded on 22-7-2005 in which the petitioner was involved as accused; that there is no direct evidence against the petitioner to connect him with the crime; that the only evidence against the petitioner is of extra-judicial confession which is a weakest type of evidence; that no recovery was effected from the petitioner and that the petitioner is behind the bars since 17-10-2005 and he is no more required by the police for the purposes of investigation.
4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State has vehemently opposed the bail application and submitted that deeper appreciation of merits could not be made at bail stage.
5. Arguments heard. Record perused.
6. The petitioner is not named in the F.I.R. He was involved as accused on the supplementary statement of the complainant recorded on 22-7-2005 but this statement did not disclose as to how the complainant came to know the name of the petitioner when in fact he had not disclosed his name in the F.I.R. Therefore, the petitioner/ accused could not be reasonably believed to have committed the offence. Reliance in this behalf is placed upon Naeem Akhtar v. The State 1996 SCM R 511. There is no direct evidence against the petitioner to connect him with the offence. The only evidence against the petitioner is of extrajudicial confession which is a weakest type of evidence. Reliance in this behalf is also placed on Muhammad Hussain v. Afzal Ahmad and another 1995 SCM R 932. No recovery was effected from the petitioner. The petitioner has been declared innocent by the police as is evident from Zimni No,75 dated 4-4-2006. The petitioner was arrested on 17-10-2005 and since then he is in jail. He is no more required by the police for the purposes of investigation. No useful purpose will be served to put the petitioner behind the bars for an indefinite period.
7. In view of the above circumstances, the petitioner is admitted to, bail subject to his furnishing =bail bonds in the sum of Rs-1,00,000 (rupees one. Iac) with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of, the trial Court.
Cited by 1 case
- MOHAMMAD SHOAIB Versus State 2018 YLRN 120