KHALID MEHMOOD vs THE STATE
This petition for post-arrest bail arises from an F.I.R. registered under Section 302 and Section 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, concerning the alleged murder of a deceased person. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to bail given the evidentiary gaps in the prosecution's case. The Court observed that the F.I.R. did not initially place the petitioner at the scene, and the subsequent statements of eye-witnesses were recorded with an eighteen-day delay without explanation. Furthermore, the Chemical Examiner's report detected no poison, contradicting the prosecution's theory, and the post-mortem failed to establish a cause of death. The Court held that the prosecution's case against the petitioner required further inquiry into his guilt. Consequently, the Court admitted the petitioner to bail, establishing the principle that where the prosecution's case lacks a clear cause of death, relies on delayed witness statements, and fails to connect the accused to the crime, the case falls within the purview of further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898.
- Does the absence of a confirmed cause of death in a murder case warrant the grant of bail under the principle of further inquiry?
- Can bail be granted when prosecution eye-witnesses appear after an unexplained delay of eighteen days?
- Does the lack of chemical evidence supporting the alleged method of killing (poisoning) constitute grounds for further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 34, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 497(2), Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
' ASIF SAEED KHAN. KHOSA, J.-Through this petition Khalid Mehmood petitioner has sought post- arrest bail in case F.I.R. No,341 registered at Police 'Station Saddar Pasroor, District Sialkot on 22-10- 2005 in respect of an offence under section 302, P.P.C. Read with section 34, P.P.C.
2. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and going through the record it has been noticed by me that according, to the F.I.R. The petitioner was not present at the scene of the crime at the relevant time and, thus, he does not stand saddled with the responsibility of causing any injury to deceased or administering poison to the deceased himself. According to the F.I.R. The petitioner had provided behind-the- scene abetment to his co-accused but in the F.I.R. No motive had been set up by the prosecution as to why the petitioner would be interested in killing the deceased. After about eighteen days of the registration of the F.I.R. Three eye-witnesses had come forward and they had got their statements recorded by the Investigating Officer on 11-2005 wherein they had maintained that they had seen the petitioner near the place of occurrence issuing directions to his coaccused as to how the deceased was to be dealt with. It is pertinent to mention here that so far the actual persons who had allegedly administered poison to the deceased have not been nominated or arrested. It is also relevant to mention here that according to the prosecution the co culprits of the petitioner had administered poison to the deceased but the report of the Chemical Examiner regarding the viscera and the other parts of the' dead body shows that no poison had been detected in the deceased's dead body. As a matter of fact the . Doctor conducting the post-mortem examination had never specified any cause of death of the accused.
It is, thus, prima facie nbt clear as to whether the deceased had died an unnatural death or his death was natural. The above mentioned eyewitnesses being relied upon by the prosecution had surfaced in this case after eighteen days of the alleged occurrence and apparently there is no explanation available on the>record so far as to why they had kept mum for so long. The learned counsel for the State.Has confirmed the fact that so far no record has been obtained from the Telephone Department so as to confirm the allegation that the petitioner had made some telephone calls to the deceased. The dead body of the deceased did not carry any mark 'of violence on any part. During the investigation the petitioner had been found to be innocent and at one stage he had been recommended for discharge. The petitioner happens to be a public servant and, thus, there is little likelihood of his absconscion in case of admission to bail.
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,5C,000 (Rupees fifty thousand only) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court.
4. Before parting with this order it may be clarified that the observations made in the present order shall always be treated as tentative in nature and the same shall not prejudice the investigating agency or the learned trial Court in any manner.