MUHAMMAD NIAZ vs STATE through Additional Advocate General and another
This revision petition is directed against the order of the Additional District Court of Criminal Jurisdiction, Hajira, refusing post-arrest bail to the petitioner in a case registered under Sections 302 and 109 of the Azad Penal Code. The core legal question concerns whether the petitioner was entitled to bail on the basis of further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, given the absence of direct eyewitnesses. The Shariat Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir held that the petitioner was not entitled to bail at this stage, as sufficient circumstantial evidence—including a judicial confession recorded under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, recovery of the weapon of offence at the instance of the petitioner, and a positive Forensic Science Expert report matching the crime empties with the recovered weapon—prima facie connected the petitioner to the alleged crime. The petition was consequently dismissed, establishing that corroborative circumstantial evidence and forensic reports can suffice to deny bail in heinous offences even in the absence of direct eyewitness testimony.
- Whether bail can be refused when circumstantial evidence and forensic reports prima facie connect the accused to the offence?
- Does the absence of direct eyewitnesses automatically entitle an accused to post-arrest bail under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure?
- What is the evidentiary value of a Forensic Science Expert report matching crime empties with a recovered weapon at the bail stage?
- Section 302, Azad Penal Code
- Section 109, Azad Penal Code
- Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 164, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
Above titled revision petition is directed against the order of Additional District Court of Criminal Jurisdiction, Hajira, dated 11.02.2008, whereby the petitioner was refused bail.
2. Brief facts forming background of the revision petition are that a case under Sections 302/109, A.P.C. was registered at Police Station, Hajira on the complaint of Muhammad Javed. It was reported that on 10-09-2003, Aurangzeb informed the complainant that someone killed his brother Abdul Khaliq with fire arm weapon and the dead body was lying near the Boys Primary School, Malhar.
3. During investigation, the Police arrested the accused .petitioner. He applied for bail before the trial Court which was refused through the impugned order, hence this revision petition.
4. Learned Counsel for the accused-petitioner argued that the petitioner was involved in a false case on account of enmity. The occurrence was not witnessed by any body. Recovery of weapon of offence was highly doubtful. No other evidence connecting the petitioner with the offence was brought on record and his case was covered under sub-section (2) of Section 497, Cr.P.C, therefore, by accepting the revision petition, bail may be granted to the petitioner.
5. On the other hand, it was argued that the petitioner was alleged for hatching conspiracy and committing murder of Abdul Khaliq. Though the occurrence was not witnessed but strong evidence in shape of statement of Muhammad Ishtiaq recorded under Section 164, Cr.P.C., recovery of weapon of offence, Forensic Science Expert report and post mortem report etc., was on record.
Sufficient material to establish a prima facie case against the accused-petitioner was brought on record, thus it cannot be said that the Court below committed any error while refusing bail. The impugned order being correct and in accordance with law and principles governing bail matter needs no interference, therefore, the revision petition may be dismissed.
6. I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and gone through the record of the case.
7. The prosecution case was that the accused petitioner and Muhammad Nawaz accused , (absconder) hatched a conspiracy and in order to execute the same, the accused-petitioner committed the offence. Though there was no direct evidence, however, circumstantial evidence such as weapon of offence recovered at the instance of the accused-petitioner, crime empties seized from the place of occurrence and statement of P.W Ishtiaq Ahmed recorded under Section 164, Cr.P.C. was brought on record by the prosecution.
8. It may be mentioned here that during first round bail was refused to the petitioner by this Court and it was observed that he may file a fresh bail application after examination of Muhammad Azam and Muhammad Pervaiz recovery witnesses of weapon of offence.
9. A careful consideration of their statements shows that they prima facie proved the claim of prosecution regarding recoveries. Another important circumstance was that Forensic Science Expert's report shows that the crime empty seized from the place of occurrence was fired from the weapon recovered at the instance of accused-petitioner.
10.The above mentioned facts coupled with the statement of P.W. Ishtiaq Ahmed recorded under Section 164, Cr.P.C., prima facie connects the accused-petitioner with the offence, therefore, it cannot be said that the Court below committed any error while refusing bail to him.
11. Before parting with the case I would like to mention that any expression of opinion in this order is purely for the purpose of bail. The trial Court shall be free to form its own opinion while deciding the case against the accused-petitioner.
12. In light of the facts listed above, finding no force in this revision petition, it is hereby dismissed.