MUHAMMAD SHAFIQUE vs THE STATE
This petition for post-arrest bail arises from a criminal case registered under FIR No. 219 at Police Station Allahabad, District Kasur, concerning the alleged murder of Muhammad Arshid. The petitioner, Muhammad Shafique, sought bail after being implicated in the offence, initially under sections 148/302/149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, with subsequent modifications involving sections 34 and 109. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to bail given the lack of direct evidence and the conflicting investigative findings. The Court observed that no eyewitnesses saw the petitioner administering poison, a key witness had sworn an affidavit denying the allegations, and successive investigating officers had concluded the petitioner was innocent, placing him in column No. 2 of the initial challan. Finding no incriminatory evidence on record to substantiate the petitioner's involvement, the Court held that the case against the petitioner warranted further inquiry into his guilt. Consequently, the petition was allowed, and the petitioner was admitted to bail upon furnishing a bail bond of Rs. 50,000.
- Does the absence of direct evidence and conflicting investigative reports regarding an accused's involvement justify a grant of bail for further inquiry?
- Can bail be granted when successive investigating officers have concluded the innocence of the accused?
- Is an accused entitled to bail when the prosecution fails to point out any incriminatory evidence on the record?
- Section 148, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 149, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 34, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 109, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
' ASIF SAEED KHAN KHOSA, J.---Through this petition Muhammad Shafique petitioner has sought post-arrest bail in case F.I.R. No.219 registered at Police Station, Allahabad, District Kasur on 16-7- 2005 in respect of offences under sections 148/302/149, P.P.C. During the investigation sections 148 and 149, P.P.C. Were deleted from the F.I.R. And sections 34 and 109, P.P.C. Were added to the same.
2. Admittedly nobody had seen the petitioner administering poison to Muhammad Arshid deceased. One of the witnesses mentioned in the F.I.R. Namely Muhammad Ashiq has already sworn an affidavit regarding falsity of the allegations levelled against the petitioner in the F.I.R. The successive Investigating Officers conducting investigation of this case had concurred in their opinion regarding innocence of the petitioner. In the first challan submitted in this case the petitioner's name had been placed in column No.2 thereof but subsequently another challan was submitted in this case and in that challan the petitioner had been alleged to have abetted his co- accused. I have repeatedly asked the learned counsel for the State to point out any incriminatory evidence A available on the record showing involvement of the petitioner in the alleged murder but he has expressed his inability to do the same because the record of this case apparently contains no such evidence against the petitioner. For all these reasons the case against the petitioner calls for further inquiry into his guilt. This petition is, therefore, allowed and the petitioner is admitted to bail subject to furnishing bail bond in the sum of Rs.50,000 (Rupees fifty thousand only) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned Trial Court.