Muhammad Shafique vs The State
This matter arises from a petition filed by Muhammad Shafique seeking post-arrest bail in case FIR No. 219 registered at Police Station, Allahabad, District Kasur, relating to offences including murder. The core legal question concerns whether the petitioner's alleged involvement, particularly regarding abetment and lack of direct eyewitness accounts or incriminatory evidence, warrants further inquiry into his guilt under criminal law. The Lahore High Court held that since no direct eyewitness saw the petitioner administering poison, a witness swore an affidavit of falsity, successive investigating officers found him innocent, and the State could point to no incriminatory evidence, the case called for further inquiry. The petition was consequently allowed, and the petitioner was admitted to bail. The key principle laid down is that where investigation reports indicate innocence, witnesses retract via affidavit, and the record lacks incriminatory material, a case falls within the scope of further inquiry, entitling the accused to post-arrest bail.
- Does a case warrant further inquiry for the grant of bail when successive investigating officers opine that the accused is innocent?
- Is an accused entitled to post-arrest bail when the record contains no incriminatory evidence connecting him to the alleged offence?
- What is the effect of an affidavit by a prosecution witness stating that allegations in the FIR are false at the bail stage?
- 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 109, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
ASIF SAEED KHAN KHOSA, J. - Through this petition Muhammad Shafique petitioner has sought postarrest bail in case FIR No. 219 registered at Police Station, Allahabad, District Kasur on 16.07.2005 in respect of offences under sections 148/302/149, P.P.C. During the investigation sections 148 and 149, P.P.C, were deleted from the FIR and sections 34 and 109, P.P.C, were added to the same.
2. Admittedly nobody had seen the petitioner administering poison to Muhammad Arshid deceased. One of the witnesses mentioned in the FIR namely Muhammad Ashiq has already sworn an affidavit regarding falsity Of the allegations levelled against the petitioner in the FIR. The successive Investigating Officers conducting investigation of this case had concurred in their opinion regarding innocence of the petitioner, In the first challan submitted in this case the petitioner's name had been placed in column No. 2 thereof but subsequently another challan was submitted in this case and in that challan the petitioner had been alleged to have abetted his co- accused! I have repeatedly asked the learned counsel for the State to point out any incriminatory evidence available on the record showing involvement of the petitioner in the alleged murder but he has expressed his inability-to do the same because the record of this case apparently contains no such evidence against the petitioner; For all these reasons the case against the petitioner calls for further inquiry into his guilt. 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 one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned Trial Court.