AMJAD MUNIR vs THE STATE
This revision petition arises from an order of the District Court of Criminal Jurisdiction, Mirpur, refusing post-arrest bail to the petitioner, Amjad Munir, who was implicated in a case registered under sections 324, 109, and 34 of the Azad Penal Code. The core legal question was whether the petitioner, accused of hatching a criminal conspiracy and hiring co-accused to commit attempted murder, was entitled to the concession of bail pending trial. The Shariat Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir held that the petitioner was prima facie connected with the offense, as the prosecution case was supported by confessional statements recorded under section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and corroborated by surrounding circumstances including financial transactions. The court affirmed the lower court's decision and dismissed the petition. The key principle laid down is that where judicial records and confessional statements prima facie connect an accused to a conspiracy and a serious crime, the case does not warrant further inquiry for the purpose of bail.
- Whether an accused allegedly involved in hatching a criminal conspiracy for an offense carrying a prohibitory clause is entitled to post-arrest bail?
- Does a confessional statement recorded under section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure provide sufficient prima facie connection to deny bail?
- Whether the High Court or Shariat Court can interfere with a discretionary order of a lower court refusing bail when no legal error is shown?
- Section 324, Azad Penal Code
- Section 109, Azad Penal Code
- Section 34, Azad Penal Code
- Section 164, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
' SYED HUSSAIN MAZHAR KALEEM, J.--- 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,1,000. They asked the complainant to deliver it and promised that remaining amount 4,900 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 Garah 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 away 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, Amjid 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 F.I.R. 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 F.I.R. 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 were arrested by the police, it was disclosed that they were hired through Amjid 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.
Existed 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 Amjid 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,2,00,000 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 Amjid 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 no force in this revision petition, it is hereby dismissed.