MUHAMMAD PERVAIZ vs THE STATE
This matter concerns a post-arrest bail application filed by the petitioner, Muhammad Pervaiz, who was charged under Section 302/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for the murder of his wife. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to bail given the contradictions between the ocular account in the F.I.R. and the subsequent investigation, specifically regarding the method of killing and the presence of witnesses. The Court held that the petitioner was entitled to bail, finding that the prosecution's case had been weakened by the recovery of a string, which contradicted the initial allegation of manual strangulation, and by the fact that a co-accused had been declared innocent during the investigation. Furthermore, the Court noted the petitioner's plausible defense of a dacoity incident, which had been supported by statements from local residents. The key principle laid down is that bail cannot be refused merely as a punishment, and when an accused successfully establishes a case for further inquiry, the benefit of doubt at the bail stage must be extended to the accused, regardless of the heinousness of the alleged offence.
- Can bail be refused merely as a punishment for a heinous offence?
- Does a contradiction between the F.I.R. and the physical evidence recovered during investigation constitute a ground for further inquiry in bail matters?
- Is an accused entitled to bail when the prosecution's case is weakened by the exoneration of a co-accused during the investigation?
- Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 34, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
' IJAZ AHMAD CHAUDHRY, J.- Through this application under section 497, Cr.P.C., Muhammad Pervaiz, petitioner seeks post-arrest bail in a case F.I.R, No. 162 . Of 2006, dated 17-3-2006, registered under section 302/34, P.P.C. At Police Station Kahna, Lahore; on the application- of Muhammad Arshad, the complainant.
2. The brief facts as narrated in the. F.I.R. Are that the petitioner had contracted marriage with Mst.
Kausar Bibi, sister of the complainant and to settle a dispute between them, the complainant along with 'Mehboob (P.W.) came to the house of the petitioner. They stayed there in the night. During the night between 16/17-3-2006 on having alarm the P.Ws. Attracted to the room of-the petitioner and saw that Khalid co-accused, elder brother of the petitioner was catching hold of Mst. Kausar Bibi and laid her on the cot, while the petitioner was pressing her neck with the hands, who died at the spot.
3. The learned counsel for the , petitioner has contended that the petitioner has been falsely involved in the present case with mala fide intention in league with the police; that according to the contents of ; F.I.R. The deceased was murdered by pressing her neck through hands, but during the investigation string was recovered and the prosecution story was belied; that it is not possible that the petitioner would have selected the time to murder his wife in the presence of her family members; that the alleged eye-witnesses of the- incident are close relatives of the deceased, who are .. Residing at a far off place and they had reached the spot afterwards on having received information about the death of the deceased; that according to the post-mortem report, the death was caused by interference with respiration at the level of neck leading to asphyxia, which is in contradiction with the ocular account and the defence version is nearer to truth that in fact dacoity had been committed in the house of the petitioner and on resistance, they committed murder of the wife of the petitioner through strangulation. Thus, the case against the petitioner is doubtful, who is behind the bars since 29-3-2006 and his detention , in jail will serve no useful purpose to the prosecution, therefore, the petitioner is entitled to the concession of bail.
4. The Learned Deputy Prosecutor General for the State has vehemently opposed this bail petition, while contending that the offence falls within ambit of prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C.
5. I have heard the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record with due care and caution.
6. According to the prosecution story, the incident had taken place during the night between 16/17- 3-2006. According to the contents of F.I.R., the deceased was murdered by her husband through strangulation with his hands, but on the other hand the string was recovered by the police from near the de,ad body of the deceased during the investigation and the prosecution story has been belied. It is also doubtful that the petitioner had chosen the time to murder his wife when her close relatives were also present in the home. Even otherwise, the complainant and the other eye- witnesses were residing at a far off place and their version of being present at the-spot at the tiirfe of the occurrence during the night time will be seen by the learned trial Court after recording the prosecution evidence. Moreover, Khalid coaccused has been declared innocent during the investigation, who was attributed the role of catching hold of the deceased during the occurrence.
On the other hand, the petitioner has taken the specific plea that the deceased was done to death by the dacoits and the police also recorded the statements of the persons from the locality during the investigation to substantiate the said plea. For the time being the petitioner has succeeded in making out a case of further inquiry, who is behind the bars since 29-3-2006 and bail cannot be refused merely as a punishment. The benefit of doubt at any stage has to go to the accused and heinousness of the offence is not a ground for refusal of bail when the accused has succeeded in making out a case of further inquiry.
' For the foregoing reasons, the instant bail application is accepted and the petitioner is admitted to bail subject to furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs. 1,00,000 with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court.
Cited by 1 case
- SHAM Versus State 2019 YLRN 82