MUHAMMAD SHAHID vs THE STATE and others
This matter concerns a petition for post-arrest bail filed by the accused, Muhammad Shahid, who was implicated in a murder case registered under FIR No. 226/08. The core legal question was whether the prosecution had established sufficient prima facie evidence to justify the continued detention of the petitioner, given that the initial FIR did not name him and he was only implicated later through a supplementary statement. The petitioner argued that the occurrence was unseen and the supplementary statement lacked a basis in direct knowledge. The prosecution relied on the recovery of a .30-bore pistol and bullets, and the fact that the petitioner was found guilty during the investigation. The Court held that the recovery of the weapon was the only evidence connecting the petitioner to the crime. It determined that the belated nomination of the accused without a disclosed basis for the supplementary statement rendered the case one of further inquiry. Consequently, the Court granted post-arrest bail to the petitioner, establishing the principle that a weak evidentiary link based solely on a supplementary statement warrants the exercise of discretion in favor of bail.
- Does the recovery of a weapon alone constitute sufficient evidence to deny bail in a murder case?
- Is a case considered one of 'further inquiry' when the accused is named in a supplementary statement without a disclosed basis?
- Can bail be granted when the initial FIR does not name the accused and the subsequent implication is based on a supplementary statement?
- Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 34, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 201, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
' MUHAMMAD KHALID ALVI, J.---Petitioner Muhammad Shahid seeks bail after arrest in case F.I.R.
No,226/08 dated 10-7-2008 under sections 302, 34, 201 P.P.C. Registered at Police Station Saddar Chichawatni District Sahiwal.
2. Prosecution story as narrated in the F.I.R. 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. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that according to F.I.R. 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 D.P.G. 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 A 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.
Cited by 2 cases
- HABIBULLAH KHAN vs THE STATE and another 2011 MLD 473
- MUHAMMAD RAMEEZ vs THE STATE 2010 YLR 3068