AMJAD MUNIR vs STATE
This revision petition is directed against the order of the District Court of Criminal Jurisdiction, Mirpur, whereby the petitioner's application for post-arrest bail was refused in a case registered under Sections 324, 109, and 34 of the Azad Penal Code. The core legal question was whether the petitioner, who was implicated through confessional statements and circumstantial evidence for allegedly hatching a conspiracy and hiring assassins, was entitled to the concession of bail. The court held that a prima facie connection between the petitioner and the offence was established through confessional statements recorded under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and corroboratory evidence regarding financial transactions. Consequently, the court dismissed the revision petition, upholding the lower court's refusal to grant bail. The key principle laid down is that where confessional statements and supporting financial evidence prima facie connect an accused to a criminal conspiracy and the hiring of perpetrators, bail will be denied.
- Whether an accused implicated through confessional statements under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for hiring assassins is entitled to post-arrest bail?
- Does the existence of corroboratory financial evidence regarding a conspiracy constitute reasonable grounds to believe the accused is connected with the offence for the purpose of bail?
- Can a revisional court interfere with a trial court's order refusing bail when a prima facie case is established?
- Section 324, Azad Penal Code
- Section 109, Azad Penal Code
- Section 34, Azad Penal Code
- Section 164, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
The above titled revision petition is directed against the order of District Court of Criminal Jurisdiction, Mirpur, dated 12.10.2007, whereby the petitioner was refused bail.
2. Brief facts leading to the background of the revision petition are that a case under Sections 324/109 and 34, A.P.C. was registered at Police Station, Thothal on the complaint of Muhammad Shabir. It was reported that on 20.8.2007 at 10.00, a.m. the complainant was present in his shop. Two unknown persons came there, purchased a washing machine and paid Rs, 1000/-. They asked the complainant to deliver it and promised that remaining amount Rs,4900/- shall be paid after reaching Khaliqabad. The complainant agreed and left the shop as they passed Khaliqabad cross the accused contacted some one on telephone and asked the complainant to turn the vehicle towards Garha-Nandwal road. When they reached at the place of occurrence, the accused asked him to stop vehicle, one of them took out his pistol and fired which hit the complainant at his left leg. They ran way after committing the offence. It was alleged that Sohail, his son Adeel, partners Raja Nabeel Kamran and Imran hatched a conspiracy and hired the unknown accused persons for commission of the offence. Motive was a quarrel between the parties which took place prior to the occurrence.
3. During investigation, Amjad Munir and three others were found guilty for commission of the offence and they were apprehended by Police. The accused petitioner applied for bail before the trial Court but it was refused. Second bail application was also dismissed by the District Court of Criminal Jurisdiction, Mirpur through the impugned order. Hence this revision petition.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that according to the FIR Sohail, his son and three others hatched a conspiracy against the complainant resulting into the occurrence. Later on due to their influence the Police gave concession to them, a story was concocted and petitioner was roped in a false case. The accused petitioner was not nominated in the FIR. Adeel Riaz and Mannam Jamal who were alleged to take the complainant at place of occurrence and fired at him were forced to record confessional statements and involve the petitioner in the case. The allegation against the accused petitioner was that he hired Adeel Riaz and Mannam Jamal for killing the complainant but no evidence regarding hatching conspiracy was brought on record.
Alleged motive was not confidence inspiring and the prosecution story being highly doubtful was not worth consideration. The trial Court failed to appreciate that the case against the accused petitioner was one that of further inquiry, thus, the impugned order being incorrect and against, settled principles governing bail matter was not sustainable, therefore, by accepting revision petition, the same may be set aside and the petitioner be released on bail.
5. On the other hand, it was argued that initially Sohail, his son and partners were alleged for hatching conspiracy which resulted into the occurrence but when Adeel Riaz and Mannam Jamal who committed the offence was arrested by the police, it was disclosed that they were hired through Amjad Munir by Maqbool Begum to commit the offence. The allegation was proved by confessional statements of the accused persons recorded under Section 164, Cr.P.C. and surrounding circumstances. A prima facie case for commission of offence under Section 109, A.P.C. existing against accused petitioner, he being responsible for hiring the real culprit for commission of the offence was not entitled to concession of bail, thus it cannot be said that the Court below committed any error while rejecting the application, the impugned order being correct and in accordance with law needs no interference, therefore, the revision petition may be dismissed.
6. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record of the case.
7. The prosecution case was that the Amjad Munir and Mst. Farzana Kousar wife of the complainant were having illicit relations. They hatched a conspiracy to commit the offence, the accused received Rs, 200,000/. from Maqbool Bibi mother of Mst. Farzana Kousar and hired Adeel Riaz and Mannam Jamal for commission of the offence. Adeel Riaz and Mannam Jamal were arrested, they confessed the allegation and recorded their statements under Section 164, Cr.P.C. wherein it was disclosed that two days prior to the occurrence Amjad Munir invited them and they came to Mirpur.
The accused motivated them for commission of the offence and offered money. He also promised to send them to United Kingdom and discussed the issue with Mst. Farzana Kousar through telephone, following the conspiracy they committed the offence, thus it implies that the allegations were supported by the confessional statements of Adeel Riaz, Mannam Jamal and Amjad Munir accused while the same were corroborated by Sohail Yousaf, owner of the currency exchange who received money from Mst. Farzana Kousar and gave it to the accused petitioner.
8. In light of the facts listed above prima facie the accused petitioner was connected with the offence and it cannot be said that the Court below committed any error while refusing bail therefore, finding on force in this revision petition, it is hereby dismissed.