MUNAWAR HUSSAIN vs THE STATE
This matter arises from a post-arrest bail petition filed by Munawar Hussain seeking pre-trial release in a criminal case registered under sections 302, 201, and 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 relating to the alleged murder of the complainant's brother by burning him alive. The core legal questions involve whether unexplained delay in lodging the FIR, lack of eyewitnesses, initial statements indicating suicide, and a police finding of innocence based on a plea of alibi constitute grounds for further inquiry under criminal jurisprudence. The Lahore High Court held that the cumulative effect of the unexplained eight-day delay, absence of eyewitnesses, statements under section 174 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 supporting suicide, and placement of the petitioner's name in column 2 of the challan after being declared innocent during investigation brings the case within the scope of further inquiry. The court laid down the principle that where incriminating material is tentatively lacking to connect the accused with the crime and the investigation supports a plea of alibi and suicide, the accused is entitled to the concession of post-arrest bail.
- Does an unexplained delay of eight days in lodging the FIR make a criminal case one of further inquiry for the purpose of bail?
- Whether the police finding an accused innocent and placing his name in column 2 of the challan entitles him to post-arrest bail?
- Is an accused entitled to bail when there are no eyewitnesses and initial proceedings under section 174 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 point towards suicide rather than homicide?
- Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 201, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 34, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 174, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
TARIQ SHAMIM, J.---Through this petition the petitioner seeks bail after arrest in case F.I.R. No,223 of 2006, dated 23-3-2006, registered under sections 302, 201 and 34, P.P.C., registered at Police Station A-Division, Sheikhupura.
2. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner and his co-accused arc alleged to have committed the murder of Zulfiqar Ali, the brother of the complainant by burning him alive with kerosene oil.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that there was a delay of eight days in lodging of the F.I.R. Which had not been explained, that there was no eyewitness of the occurrence and only suspicion was cast in the F.I.R. Against the petitioner and others, that in fact, the deceased had committed suicide as he had developed illicit relations with the wife of his brother, who on coming to know about the same had scolded the deceased; that in proceedings under section 174, Cr.P.C.
Father brother of the deceased and other witnesses stated that they had no suspicion against anybody regarding the death of the deceased and that he had committed suicide; that the petitioner at the very outset raised the plea of alibi as he was driver of a truck Company and was not present at the place of occurrence on 16/17-3-2006 and that the police during the course of investigation declared the petitioner innocent hence he was entitled to the concession of bail.
4. On the other hand learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State contended that the petitioner was named in the F.I.R. And strong suspicion had been cast against him and others for committing the murder of Zulfiqar deceased that the challan had been submitted. However, it was admitted that during the investigation the petitioner was declared innocent as his plea of alibi had been found to be correct and that in the challan his name was mentioned in Column 2.
5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
6. Admittedly there is a delay of eight days in lodging of the F.I.R, which has not been explained, which creates doubts about the veracity of the prosecution case. There is no eye-witness of the occurrence and the F.I.R, reveals that the same was lodged on suspicion of the complainant that the petitioner and others had committed the murder of Zulfiqar Ali deceased. In the proceedings conducted under section 174, Cr.P.C., the father, brother and other persons got their statements recorded to the effect that they had no suspicion against anyone regarding death of Zulfiqar and that he had committed suicide. This by itself makes the case of the petitioner one of further, inquiry.
The petitioner, according to the police record, had raised the plea of alibi at the very outset which was confirmed during the course of investigation where after the petitioner was declared innocent and his name was placed in Column 2 of the challan. The record further reveals that the deceased committed suicide by burning himself with kerosene oil on account of dispute with his brother regarding his illicit relations with his wife. A tentative assessment of the material available on record reveals that presently there is not enough incriminating material available on the record to connect the petitioner with the commission of the offence of murder of Zulfiqar Ali deceased.
7. For what has been discussed above, this petition is allowed and the petitioner is allowed bail, subject to his furnishing bail bond in the sum of Rs, 1,00,000 with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial court.
Cited by 1 case
- MUHAMMAD AHMAR Versus State 2017 PCrLJN 49