GHULAM HASHMI vs THE STATE and another
This matter arises from two post-arrest bail applications filed by petitioners Ghulam Hashmi and Ashiq Hussain in respect of FIR No. 268 registered under sections 302/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 and section 10(3) of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance 1979 at Police Station Zahir Pir. The core legal question concerns whether the petitioners are entitled to post-arrest bail when the occurrence is unseen, the FIR is based on suspicion, the investigating officer found no incriminating evidence during investigation, and a co-accused with an identical role has already been granted bail. The Lahore High Court held that since the case against the petitioners rests on unsubstantiated suspicion and they are not connected to the motive, their case falls within the scope of further inquiry under section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. Consequently, the court admitted both petitioners to post-arrest bail, establishing the principle that tentative assessment of record pointing towards further inquiry warrants the grant of bail in unseen murder cases based on mere suspicion.
- Whether post-arrest bail should be granted when an FIR is based on uncorroborated suspicion and the investigating officer finds no evidence connecting the accused to the crime?
- Does the rule of consistency apply when a co-accused with an identical role has already been admitted to bail by the High Court?
- When does a criminal case fall within the purview of further inquiry warranting bail under criminal jurisprudence?
- Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 34, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 10(3), Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance 1979
ORDER
' MUHAMMAD KHALID ALVI, J.-Through this single order I propose to dispose of Crl. Miscellaneous No,l273-B of 2006 and Crl. Miscellaneous No, 1278-B of 2006 as both these applications have arisen out of the same F.I.R.
2. Petitioners Ghulam Hashmi and Ashiq Hussain have sought post-arrest bail in case F.I.R. No,268, registered at Police Station, Zahir Pir, on 3-7-2006 for offences under sections 302/34, P.P.C. And 10(3) of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979.
3. Succinctly, the prosecution. Story put forward by the complainant is that she on 3-7-2006 along with her daughter Mst. Shamshad Bibi aged about 14/15 years, her brother Akram and Anwar Mai wife of her brother Aslam went to cut the grass from a Sugarcane crop of local Zamindar, that after Cutting the grass, daughter of the complainant made a bundle and took it to her house, time and again. After a short while the said Akram and Anwar Mai also went towards the house with the bundles of grass. The complainant's daughter Shamshad also went behind them with the assurance to, come back after making the cattle drink water but after a lapse of noticeable time she did not return. Then the complainant went to her house where Anwar Mai wife of her brother and Hanifan daughter of complainant disclosed that Shamshad had gone to collect the grass.
Thereafter, the complainant along with Akram her brother, Sabir her neighbour went in search of Shamshad. When they reached in the cotton crop "of Haji Akbar Maril, they saw Shamshad Bibi in naked condition and found her dead, her hands and feet were tied with scarf of Shamshad Bibi and Shalwar was tightly tied around the neck of deceased. On hearing hue and cry, people of the vicinity were attracted to the spot. Motive behind the scene was that four months prior to the registration of the case, Pervaiz and Malik nephews of the complainant molested her daughter Shamshad Akhtar, who was going near sugarcane crop, for which they were reprimand by the complainant and other relatives. They had friendly relations with Shahbaz co-accused and the petitioners. The complainant suspected that they had committed the murder.
4. It is contended that it is an unseen occurrence; that the petitioners have been involved merely on the basis of suspicion; that the petitioners are not connected with the motive part of the case as the motive is merely attributable to Pervaiz co-accused; tjiat the petitioners are behind the bars since 26-7-2006; that during investigation as well the petitioners were not found to be connected with the case and that the coaccused Shehbaz has already been allowed bail by this Court having identical role through order dated 27-11-2006.
5. On the other hand, learned Additional P.G. Has opposed this application however, contends that the I.Q., according to his conclusion, did not find the petitioners to be involved in the case as there was no such evidence with him.
6. I have considered the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties.
7. It appears that it was an unseen occurrence. The complainant had implicated the present petitioners on the basis of suspicion but during investigation she could not substantiate her suspicion before the I.O. As well. The petitioners are not connected, with the motive. In this view of the mhtter petitioners' case requires further enquiry. Resultantly; they are admitted to bail subject to their furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs,50,000 (Rupees fifty thousand only) each with one surety each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court.