MUHAMMAD TANVEER KHAN vs STATE through Additional Advocate-General
This revision petition challenges the order of the District Court of Criminal Jurisdiction, Rawalakot, refusing post-arrest bail to the petitioner in a murder case registered under Section 302 of the Azad Penal Code. The core legal question was whether sufficient prima facie evidence existed connecting the accused to the alleged crime to justify withholding bail when the occurrence was unwitnessed and based on circumstantial evidence. The Shariat Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir accepted the revision petition and granted bail to the petitioner, holding that in the absence of direct eyewitnesses and concrete material establishing a prima facie case connecting the accused during the investigative stage, there was no lawful justification to refuse bail. The court laid down the principle that mere suspicion and surrounding circumstances without supporting material evidence linking the accused are insufficient to deny bail in capital charges.
- Whether post-arrest bail can be refused when an offense is unwitnessed and lacks direct prima facie evidence connecting the accused?
- Does the absence of an explanation regarding a death occurring inside a house constitute sufficient ground to deny bail?
- Can a revision petition be maintained against an order refusing bail by a trial court?
- Section 302, Azad Penal Code
- Section 169, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
Above titled revision petition is directed against the order of District Court of Criminal Jurisdiction, Rawalakot, dated 16-05-2008, whereby the petitioner was refused bail.
2. Brief facts forming background of the revision petition are that a case under Section 302, A.P.C. was registered at Police Station, Rawalakot on the complaint of Muhammad Shakoor. It was reported that the complainant's sister was married to Mumtaz Hussain brother of the accused- petitioner who informed the complainant that his sister was sick and he had to take her to hospital, upon which the complainant came at the place of occurrence and saw the dead body of sister lying on a cot in a room. The accused-petitioner told the complainant that she committed suicide.
It was alleged that the accused-petitioner and his parents imposed restriction upon victim regarding her visiting to her parents on account of which relations were strained, therefore, the complainant was not convinced that she committed suicide.
3. After registration of the case, the accused petitioner was arrested by the Police. 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 occurrence was not witnessed by any body. True facts were suppressed by the prosecution and a story was concocted to rope the petitioner in a false case on account of enmity between the two families. No evidence in support of the allegation was brought on record. -Material on record was not sufficient to establish a prima facie case against the accused-petitioner and there was no justification to refuse bail, therefore, by accepting the revision petition, bail may be granted to him.
5. On the other hand, it was argued that the petitioner was alleged for hatching conspiracy and after committing murder of Mst. Shafqat Jan pretended that she committed suicide. The occurrence took place during broad daylight. The dead body was found at the house of the petitioner and no explanation regarding her death was given by him. A strong prima facie case existed against the accused-petitioner and 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 complainant's sister Mst. Shafqat Jan was married to brother of the accused petitioner. On receiving information about her ailment the complainant came at the place of occurrence and saw her dead body. She was done to death with .12 bore gun. Initially a report for committing suicide was lodged at Police Station Rawalakot. Later on the complainant changed his position and moved another application stating therein that due to unpleasant relations between the victim and her in-laws she was murdered by Muhammad Tanveer Khan with the connivance of Akbar Hussain, Maharram Jan and Naseem Akhtar. During investigation the accused-petitioner was found guilty of the offence while the others were given benefit of Section 169, Cr.P.C.
8. A careful consideration of the record shows that the occurrence was not witnessed by any body, incident took place in the house of the accused-petitioner's father, .12 bore gun seized from the place of occurrence was used for commission of the occurrence and as per post mortem report the fire was made from a distance of 3 to 6 feet, thus inference can be drawn from the surrounding circumstance that she might have been murdered but for refusing bail some material establishing a prima facie case and connecting the accused is required. In the present case no such evidence against the accused-petitioner was available on record; therefore, there was no lawful justification to refuse bail.
9. In light of the facts listed above, the revision petition is accepted and the petitioner is admitted to bail. He shall be released from custody on furnishing bail bond in sum of Rs, 5,00,000/- and personal bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of any Magistrate 1st Class, Rawalakot.