TAHIR vs THE STATE
This petition concerns a request for post-arrest bail in a murder case registered under sections 302/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to bail given the evidentiary material available against him. The Court observed that the FIR was unwitnessed and the petitioner was not named therein, with his name surfacing only after a significant delay through a supplementary statement. Furthermore, statements recorded under section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 attributed only generalized and collective allegations to the petitioner without specifying his role. The Court also noted that the alleged recovery of a rope was a joint recovery, rendering its evidentiary value suspect, and no other direct or indirect evidence incriminated the petitioner. Holding that the case against the petitioner called for further inquiry into his guilt, the Court granted post-arrest bail. The key principle laid down is that where the prosecution evidence is weak, delayed, and lacks specific attribution, the case falls within the purview of further inquiry under section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, justifying the grant of bail.
- Does the absence of a petitioner's name in the initial FIR, coupled with a delayed supplementary statement, constitute grounds for further inquiry under section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- What is the evidentiary value of a joint recovery of an incriminating object in a criminal case?
- Can bail be granted when the prosecution evidence against an accused is generalized and lacks specific attribution of a role in the alleged crime?
- Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 148, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 149, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 34, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 161, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
' ASIF SAEED KHAN KHOSA, J.---Through this petition Tahir petitioner has sought post-arrest bail in case F.I.R. No.607 registered at Police Station, Pindi Bhattian, District Hafizabad on 30-7-2004 in respect of offences under sections 302/ 148/149, P.P.C. During the investigation sections 148 and 149, P.P.C. Were deleted from the F.I.R. And the same were substituted by section 34, P.P.C.
2. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and going through the record it has straightaway been noticed by me that according to the F.I.R. Itself the alleged murder had remained unwitnessed. It is not disputed that the petitioner's name had not figured in the F.I.R. In any capacity whatsoever. The petitioner's name had surfaced in this case for the first time on 16-9- 2004, i.e. After about a month and a half after registration of the F.I.R. Through a supplementary statement made by the complainant and according to that supplementary statement the petitioner was one of the two unknown persons mentioned in the F.I.R. Which unknown persons had been seen by the complainant running away from the place of occurrence along with the nominated accused persons. On 19-9-2004 Ghazanfar Abbas and Liaquat Ali P.Ws. Had got their statements recorded under A section 161, Cr.P.C. And they had claimed therein that they had seen the petitioner and others taking the deceased away just before his murder. Even in those statements no specific role had been attributed to the petitioner and the allegation levelled against him was couched in generalized and collective terms. During the investigation a rope had allegedly been recovered at the instance of the petitioner and his co-accused but it is admitted at all =hands that such recovery was a joint recovery and, thus, its evidentiary value appears to be quite suspect. Apart from that there is nothing available on the record to connect the recovered rope with the alleged murder. There is no other direct or indirect evidence available on the record so as to incriminate the petitioner. The challan in this case has already been submitted after completion of the 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 two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court.