BASHIR AHMED vs THE STATE
This bail application was filed by the petitioner seeking post-arrest bail in a case registered under sections 302, 34, and 109 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, concerning the alleged kidnapping and murder of the complainant's brother. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to bail given the evidentiary status of the case and the delay in trial. The petitioner argued that the investigation, including the post-mortem report and statements from the Line Superintendent and the Investigating Officer, indicated the cause of death was electrocution rather than murder, and that no motive was established. The State conceded that the investigation suggested death by electric shock and that no eyewitnesses were available. The Court observed that the petitioner had been incarcerated for 14 months with minimal progress in the trial, which was further complicated by jurisdictional transfers. Holding that the case fell within the scope of further inquiry under section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, the Court granted post-arrest bail, emphasizing that the lack of evidence regarding the cause of death and the prolonged incarceration justified the relief.
- Does a medical report indicating death by electrocution in a murder case constitute grounds for further inquiry under section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Can the prolonged incarceration of an accused combined with slow trial progress justify the grant of post-arrest bail?
- Is bail appropriate when the investigation record fails to produce eyewitnesses or evidence of motive for the alleged crime?
- Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 34, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 109, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 173, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 497(2), Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
1. ' SYED SHABBAR RAZA RIZVI, J.---This bail application has been filed on behalf of the petitioner in F.I.R. No, 49 of 2003, dated 24-1-2003. The said F.I.R. Stands registered at Police Station Khanqah Dogran, District Sheikhpura under sections 302/34 and 109, P.P.C.
2. ' According to the F.I.R., the petitioner and co-accused are alleged to have kidnapped complainant's brother, Zaka Ullah and thereafter killed him at some unknown place.
3. ' The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that no motive is attributed in the F.I.R. The occurrence is unwitnessed. He also submits that first inspection note by the Investigating Officer reveals that the deceased died of electric shock. The post mortem examination report also indicates the fact of electrocution. The Line Superintendent also stated before the Investigating Officer that the deceased died of electric shock. The report under section 173, Cr.P.C. Also hints at the same cause of death of the deceased.
4. ' The learned counsel for the State submits that name of the petitioner is mentioned in the F.I.R. She also submits that he has been absconder for five months. However, she also concedes that in Investigation it came on the record that the deceased might have been killed by an electric shock.
5. ' I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and consulted record with their assistance.
6. ' The learned counsel for the State read the zimni written by S.-I. Shabbir Hussain. According to which, the deceased died of electric shock. The Investigating Officer Shabbir Hussain further recorded in his zimni that no eye-witness could be produced before him to testify 'that the deceased was murdered by the petitioner or somebody else.
7. ' The petitioner has been behind the bars since 11-5-2004, i.e, 14 months. According to the learned State counsel, only one witness has been examined so far. The police station falls within a new created district, Nankana Sahib, therefore, the case is now to be transferred to the new Sessions Court, therefore, it is not likely that it will be concluded in the near future. The above facts and arguments lead to the belief that the present case is a case of further inquiry as envisaged in subsection (2) of section 497, Cr.P.C. This application is, therefore, allowed in view of the above discussion subject to petitioner's furnishing surety bonds of Rs,100,000 with two sureties in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court.