BASHIR AHMED vs THE STATE and another
This matter arises from a bail application filed by the petitioner Bashir Ahmad seeking post-arrest bail in case F.I.R. No. 123 dated 14-5-2009 registered under sections 302, 201, and 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code at Police Station Paroa, District D.I. Khan. The core legal question involves determining whether the petitioner's confessional statement and surrounding circumstances establish reasonable grounds to connect him with the alleged offence for the purpose of bail. The Peshawar High Court held that the petitioner did not play an effective role in the occurrence according to the confessional statement, which attributed the fatal shots to a co-accused, and noted procedural questions regarding the recording of the confession after an initial refusal. Consequently, the court accepted the application and admitted the petitioner to bail, laying down the principle that where a tentative assessment of available material shows no effective role attributed to the accused, the case becomes one of further inquiry warranting the grant of bail.
- Whether an accused who is attributed no effective role in a confessional statement is entitled to post-arrest bail?
- Does the recording of a confession after an initial refusal by the accused raise arguable points for the purpose of bail?
- Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code
- Section 201, Pakistan Penal Code
- Section 34, Pakistan Penal Code
'ATTAULLAH KHAN, J.---Through this application, the petitioner Bashir Ahmad seeks his release on bail in case F.I.R. No,123 dated 14-5-2009 of police station Paroa, District D.I.Khan under sections 302/201/34, P.P.C. Earlier, he has failed to get the same concession from the Courts below vide orders dated 24-9-2009 and 13-10-2009 respectively.
'Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that except the so-called confessional statement, there is no other evidence available on record to connect the petitioner with the offence. He submitted that effective role in the confessional statement has been attributed to the co-accused and no effective role has been assigned to the petitioner.
'On the other hand, counsel for complainant and State contended that in the F.I.R, the petitioner is charged where after his confessional statement was recorded which is inculpatory in nature and he has also made some pointation which reasonably connect him with the commission of crime.
4. I have carefully gone through the record with the valuable assistance of the learned counsel for the parties and considered their arguments advanced at the bar.
5. The F.I.R. Reveals that the accused/petitioner along with two others were charged on suspicion and later on after the recovery of dead body, the petitioner was charged for the murder along with two other persons. The report reveals that for the first time, the accused/petitioner was charged on the basis of suspicion while afterwards he was charged for the murder when the dead body was found. When at the first instance the petitioner refused to record the confessional statement on the application submitted by the police to the Court, learned Magistrate sent him to Jail but on the same day, the petitioner was again produced before the learned Sessions Judge who referred the case to the Magistrate for recording his confession who then recorded his confessional statement.
Thus two points arise, the first is that when the petitioner refused to make confession before the Magistrate, then as to how he was again referred to him by the learned Sessions Judge for the, same purpose and the second is that in the said confessional statement, the petitioner has attributed effective role to Shadoo accused who fired two shots which hit the deceased due to which he died. No other material is available on file. Even if the confessional statement is accepted, even then the accused/petitioner has played no effective role in the occurrence. Therefore, tentative assessm ent of the materials so far brought on record, prima facie, makes the case of the petitioner arguable for the purposes of bail.
6. Consequently, the application is accepted and the accused/petitioner is admitted to bail in the sum of rupees one lac with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of Illaqa/Judicial Magistrate.
7. Above are the reasons for my short order of even date.