JAVED IQBAL vs STATE
This matter concerns a post-arrest bail application filed by the petitioner, Javed Iqbal, who was implicated in a blind murder case registered under Sections 302, 397, 201, 411, and 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to bail given the nature of the evidence, specifically the lack of nomination in the FIR and the evidentiary value of joint recoveries made after a significant delay. The Court held that the petitioner is entitled to bail under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The Court reasoned that the prosecution's case relied on joint recoveries effected over two months after the occurrence, casting doubt on the reliability of the evidence at the pre-trial stage. The key principle laid down is that where evidence is based on joint pointation and recoveries made after a substantial delay, without further corroboration, the case falls within the ambit of further inquiry, thereby entitling the accused to the concession of bail pending trial.
- Is an accused entitled to bail when the prosecution's case rests on joint recoveries made after a significant delay?
- Does the lack of nomination in an FIR for a blind murder case impact the grant of bail?
- When does a case qualify for further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 397, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 201, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 411, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 34, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 497(2), Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
One Abdul Majeed, the complainant of the case FIR No, 77 dated 14-2-2007 recorded U/Ss.
302/397/201/411/34 PPC at PS Westridge, District, Rawalpindi was on his way alongwith one Muhammad Akbar at about 8.00 a.m. that he saw the dead body in a pond of water along side the road and reported the same to the police.
2. No accused was as such nominated in the FIR, but subsequently during the investigation, the police arrested the petitioner, who allegedly lead the police to the recovery of incriminating evidence consisting of a shoe, the pieces of the mobile phone SIM etc. and also. pointed out a deserted house, where, the deceased had been murdered.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the petitioner is not nominated in the FIR, nor is there any convincing evidence connecting him with the commission of the alleged offence. As to the recoveries, he stated that the same being joint allegedly on the part of both the accused, are of no legal effect. No fire-arm injury was caused to the deceased. He argued that the recovery of the pistol was totally irrelevant. Learned counsel for the petitioner, therefore, requested that the petitioner be released on bail.
4. Learned APG has stated that the petitioner has caused a cold blood murder and that too for an illicit motive. He also stated that incriminating evidence has been collected on. the pointation of the petitioner, which alone is sufficient to implicate him in the murder of the deceased. The learned AGP vehemently maintained that the challan of the case has been submitted in the Court and trial has since commenced and that in such circumstances, the practice of the Courts is that ordinarily, the bail applications are not decided on merits. He requested for the dismissal of the bail application.
5. The bare perusal of the FIR shows that the occurrence in question was a blind murder, for which, initially, there was neither any allegation against a specific person, nor any evidence to support the nomination of an accused. It is true that during the investigation, the police allegedly collected a shoe from the place of occurrence, as well as, the pieces of mobile phone SIM, but without going into deeper appreciation of the evidence, it is observed from the record that the pointation of place of occurrence, as well as, the said collection of incriminating evidence is based on the joint description of the two accused. It is also note worthy that the alleged recoveries were effected after more than two months of the occurrence and it will be the heavy responsibility of the prosecution to establish or to explain by cogent evidence, as to how one shoe of the deceased remained lying on the place of occurrence and its recovery could be pointed out by the accused at the place of occurrence. The same would be the position about other recoveries effected from the deserted house, where the deceased was offence alleged against him. He is, therefore, entitled to bail within the meaning of Section 497(2) of Cr.P.C. The petitioner shall, thus, be released on bail provided he submits bail bonds in the amount of Rs, 100,000/- with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of learned trial Court.