MUHAMMAD ASIM MALIK vs THE STATE
This matter concerns a criminal application and a bail application arising from F.I.R. No. 354 of 2004, registered under Section 302/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, involving the murder of Asad Khan. The core legal question was whether the accused, who had been in custody for over three years without the conclusion of the trial, were entitled to post-arrest bail given the nature of the evidence against them. The prosecution's case relied primarily on alleged confessional statements, which the accused retracted. The Court observed that there was no corroborative evidence beyond these confessions, and the voluntariness and legal status of these statements remained to be determined at trial. Holding that the case required further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, the Court granted bail to the applicants. The key principle laid down is that where the prosecution's case rests solely on retracted confessions, and the trial has been significantly delayed, the accused is entitled to the benefit of further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898.
- Does a case based solely on retracted confessions without corroborative evidence constitute a matter requiring further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Is the prolonged detention of an accused without the conclusion of trial a valid ground for granting bail in a murder case?
- Can the court grant bail when the voluntariness and nature of a confession remain to be determined at trial?
- Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 34, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 174, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 497(2), Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
1. ' KHAWAJA NAVEED AHMED, J.---By this order I intend to dispose of Criminal Application No.97 of 2008 and Criminal Bail Application No.158 of 2008 as the same arise out of the F.I.R. No.354 of 2004 under section 302/34, P.P.C. Registered at North Nazimabad Police Station, Karachi.
2. ' Brief facts of the prosecution case, as disclosed in the F.I.R., are that S.-I. Muhammad Fayyaz of Police Station North Nazimabad, Karachi, had lodged F.I.R. On 11-8-2004 at 0805 hours against unknown assailants on the information given by Councillor Abdul Hameed to Madadgar Police on phone number 15. Abdul Hameed has informed that one dead-body of unknown person is lying near Paposh Graveyard. Upon receipt of this information, police reached at the spot and had conducted proceedings under section 174, Cr.P.C. A case was registered against unknown persons.
3. During the course of investigation the accused namely,. Muhammad Noman Baig alias Nomi had made confession in which he has confessed that he along with Muhammad Asim Malik and Furqan-ul-Haq had committed murder of Asad Khan. Police had arrested all the three accused persons. Asim has also made confession, which is on record.
4. ' It has been contended by the learned counsel for the applicants that after recording of the confession, the Magistrate had remanded the accused to judicial custody but the Investigating Officer instead of sending accused to jail had taken them to the Police Station where they were kept till next day. The learned counsel in support of his arguments has relied upon the case reported in 2008 PCr.LJ 87 (Muhammad Ali v. The State), 2007 PCr.LJ 1792 (Rohsan Bibi v. The State), PLJ "1977 Baghdad-ul-Jadid 23 (sic) (Nazeer Ahmed v. The State) and PLD 2004 Karachi 564 (Muhammad Raheem v. The State). The learned State counsel, namely, Mr. S. Muhammad Ali, has not opposed the grant of bail in this case.
5. I have heard the learned counsel and perused the record. The accused in the present case is in custody for last more than three years and case has not yet been concluded. There is no corroborative evidence except the alleged confessional statements of accused. It is yet to be determined at trial as to whether the retracted confessions made by the accused are voluntary or not. It is further to be determined regarding nature/status of confession as to whether it is inculpatory or exculpatory. I leave it open for the learned trial Court to decide the issue as at this stage any observation made by me would prejudice the case of either party. In my humbly opinion, this is a fit case, which requires further inquiry under section 497(2), Cr.P.C. Regarding nature of confession and pending such inquiry I admit both the applicants to bail upon their furnishing surety in the sum of Rs.100,000 each and PR bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court.