MUHAMMAD NASIR vs THE STATE and another
This matter arises from a petition for post-arrest bail filed by Muhammad Nasir in connection with case F.I.R. No. 311/07 registered under sections 302/324/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 at Police Station Kot Samaba, District Rahim Yar Khan. The core legal question is whether the petitioner is entitled to post-arrest bail where his name was not mentioned in the initial F.I.R., he was subsequently nominated in a supplementary statement, but later declared innocent by the police during investigation and supported by statements of eyewitnesses. The Lahore High Court held that since the petitioner was declared innocent by the police, no tangible evidence was available on record against him, and his further detention would amount to punishment before trial, the case falls within the scope of further inquiry under section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The court laid down the principle that continued incarceration of an accused declared innocent during investigation without supporting evidence constitutes pre-trial punishment, warranting the grant of post-arrest bail.
- Is an accused entitled to post-arrest bail when declared innocent by the police during investigation?
- Does the detention in jail of an accused against whom no tangible evidence is available amount to punishment before trial?
- Does a case fall for further inquiry under criminal law when eyewitnesses state the accused is innocent?
- Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 324, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 34, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
' SAGHIR AHMAD, J.-Petitioner seeks post-arrest bail in case F.I.R. No,311/07 dated 24-7-2007 under sections 302/324/34 P.P.C. Registered at Police Station Kot Samaba, District Rahim Yar Khan, at the instance of one Farooq Ahmad, in which it is admitted that petitioner's name is not mentioned; that in the supplementary statement made by the complainant on 5-8-2007 the petitioner and one Shaukat Ali were nominated. During the investigation said Shaukat Ali has been discharged and regarding the petitioner the eye-witness/real brother of the deceased has also made statement that petitioner is innocent, and in fact he is not a real culprit. It is also stated that during the investigation nothing has been recovered from the petitioner and petitioner is in judicial lock up since 26-8-2007. It is further stated that after involvement of the petitioner and one Shaukat Ali, two other accused were nominated through another supplementary statement namely, Ghulam Hussain and Abdul Jabbar. According to the Investigating Officer one Abdul Jabbar nominated through second supplementary statement has been died and said Ghulam Hussain has been involved in this case. It is further stated that regarding petitioner here is no evidence available on the file.
2. Learned Deputy Prosecutor-General after examining the record, verified the facts that through Zimini No,14 the police has declared the petitioner innocent and even there is no tangible evidence available on the file.
3. I have heard that learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record with their able assistance. It is admitted that petitioner's name is not mentioned in the F.I.R. On the record that through supplementary statement one Shaukat Ali and petitioner were involved in this case but later on during the investigation witnesses made the statement that petitioner is innocent and other co-accused Shaukat Ali was discharged from the offence. The police on the basis of evidence also declared the petitioner innocent but he was not discharged from the offence and he is in judicial lock up since 26-8-2007. The detention of the petitioner in jail is punishment before trial, which is not mandate of law. The petitioner is not required for further investigation. As the petitioner has been declared innocent by the police and no evidence is available on the file, prima facie, it is a case of further inquiry to the extent of petitioner. So, he is allowed post-arrest bail subject to his furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs, One lac with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court.