MUHAMMAD SHAHID vs STATE and another
The petitioner sought post-arrest bail in a murder case registered under Sections 302, 34, and 201 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The prosecution alleged that the petitioner was involved in the murder of the complainant's son, whose body was recovered from a canal. The petitioner argued that the FIR was initially lodged against unknown persons and that his subsequent implication via a supplementary statement lacked direct evidence or a basis for suspicion. The prosecution relied on the recovery of a 30-bore pistol and live ammunition from the petitioner and the findings of the investigation. The Court observed that the primary evidence against the petitioner was the recovery of the weapon and the supplementary statement, which failed to disclose the source of the complainant's suspicion. Consequently, the Court held that the petitioner's involvement required further inquiry. The Court granted bail, emphasizing that in the absence of substantial evidence connecting the accused to the crime, the case fell under the category of further inquiry, warranting the release of the petitioner on bail.
- Does the implication of an accused in a supplementary statement without disclosing the basis for suspicion constitute sufficient grounds to deny bail?
- Is a case considered one of further inquiry when the only evidence against the accused is the recovery of a weapon and a belated supplementary statement?
- Can an accused be granted bail when the initial FIR was lodged against unknown persons and the subsequent nomination lacks direct evidence?
- Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 34, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 201, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
Petitioner Muhammad Shahid seeks bail after arrest in case FIR No, 226/08 dated 10.07.2008 under Sections 302, 34, 201 PPC registered at Police Station Saddar Chichawatni District Sahiwal.
2. Prosecution story as narrated in the FIR is that Muhammad Bilal son of the complainant was murdered and his dead body was thereafter recovered from the canal. In the supplementary statement, however, suspicion was shown against the petitioner.
3. Contends that according to FIR it was an unseen occurrence; that petitioner along with Boota co-accused was involved by the complainant through a supplementary statement recorded on 11.7.2008. It is further added that the said statement is even not based on any direct knowledge of the complainant or the witnesses; that there is no substantial piece of evidence for the time being in possession of the prosecution to connect the petitioner with the commission of crime.
4. On the other hand, learned DPG assisted by learned counsel for the complainant contends that a 30-Bore pistol along with six live bullets was recovered from the petitioner and that he has been found guilty in the investigation.
5. I have considered the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties.
6. Recovery of Pistol along with six bullets, prima-facie, is the only evidence available with the prosecution against the petitioner. Nomination of petitioner by complainant on 11.7.2008 through a supplementary statement and that too without disclosing the basis for making such supplementary statement makes the case of petitioner one of further inquiry. He is accordingly admitted to bail subject to his furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs: 1,00,000/- (Rupees one lac only) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of learned trial Court.