FAYYAZ MAQSOOD and 3 others vs THE STATE
This matter concerns a post-arrest bail application filed by the petitioners in a criminal case. The core legal question was whether the petitioners were entitled to the grant of post-arrest bail given the nature of the evidence presented against them, specifically the reliability of a belated confession and circumstantial evidence. The court held that the petitioners were entitled to bail, observing that the case against them was essentially one of 'no evidence.' The court noted that the initial First Information Report (F.I.R.) did not name any accused, and the subsequent implication of the petitioners occurred six and a half years later through a confessional statement by an individual already sentenced to death in another case. Furthermore, the court found the alleged recovery of a motorcycle to be unsubstantiated by the initial F.I.R. or supplementary statements. The key principle laid down is that while courts generally avoid deeper appreciation of evidence at the bail stage, bail may be granted where the prosecution's case is fundamentally devoid of credible evidence, rendering the continued incarceration of the accused unjustified.
- Can bail be granted in a criminal case where the prosecution's evidence is found to be essentially non-existent?
- Is a belated confessional statement by a convict in another case sufficient to deny bail to the accused?
- Does the prohibition against deeper appreciation of evidence at the bail stage prevent a court from identifying a case of no evidence?
ORDER
' KHAWAJA MUHAMMAD SHARIF, J.---In response to our order dated 20-7-2006 passed in this application, learned counsel for the complainant submits that in fact after 6-1/2 years one Ashiq who was already undergoing the death sentence in Faisalabad Jail in some other case stated that he along with his co-accused had murdered the deceased in the instant case so he in order to satisfy his conscience became approver and made statement implicating the present petitioners.
Further submits that Abdul Qayyum convict also got recovered a motorcycle which belonged to the complainant party. Next submits that there is also evidence of extra-judicial evidence against the present petitioners and the ocular account is supported by the medical evidence. Lastly submits that the grounds urged by learned counsel for the petitioners relate to deeper appreciation evidence. The learned Law officer adopts the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the complainant.
2. Heard.
3. In the F.I.R. Nobody was named: it was stated by the complainant that he had seen one person running from the spot after the occurrence; after 6-1/2 years one Ashiq who was undergoing the sentence of death in Faisalabad jail in some other case, on one fine morning when his conscience pricked, established contact with the complainant party- and then he made confessional statement after becoming approver. No mention of motorcycle was made in the F.I.R.; it was so alleged by the complainant in the supplementary statement but in that statement too, it was not stated that the motorcycle was having such and such registration number. It is not a case of eye- witness account but of circumstantial evidence. We are aware of the fact that at this stage deeper appreciation of evidence cannot be done but, the fact remains that it is a case of no evidence, so without commenting any further, we suspend the sentence of the petitioners and direct that they shall be released on bail subject to their furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs.2,00,000 (two lac rupees) with two sureties in the like amount to the satisfaction of D.R. (J) of this Court. They shall appear on each and every date of hearing fixed by this Court.
Cited by 1 case
- Nazir Ahmed and another vs The State, etc 2014 NLR Criminal 346, 2014 PSC (Crl.) 6