MUHAMMAD ATHAR IQBAL vs THE STATE
This matter concerns a bail application filed by the applicant, Muhammad Athar Iqbal, who was implicated in Crime No. 35/08 registered under Sections 365/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the applicant was entitled to bail given that his name appeared in Column 2 of the challan and no specific incriminating evidence or role was attributed to him, despite the prosecution's reliance on circumstantial evidence. The court held that while the prosecution relied on circumstantial evidence, specifically cell phone records leading to the arrest of other co-accused who confessed to the murder and from whose house the body was recovered, there was no evidence linking the applicant to the crime or the premises. Consequently, the court confirmed the bail previously granted to the applicant. The key principle laid down is that where the prosecution fails to provide evidence connecting an accused to the crime or the scene of the offense, and the primary accused are already in custody, the applicant is entitled to the benefit of bail, particularly when the complainant expresses no objection.
- Is an accused entitled to bail when their name is placed in Column 2 of the challan and no specific role is attributed to them?
- Does the absence of evidence linking an accused to the crime scene justify the confirmation of bail?
- Can bail be confirmed when the complainant expresses no objection to the release of the accused?
- Section 365, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 34, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
1. ' MUSHIR ALAM, J.---The applicant seeks bail in Crime No,35/08 of P.S. Baloch Colony, under sections 365/34, P.P.C.
2. ' Brief facts of the case are that one Muhammad Ateeq, brother of the complainant, Muhammad Saeed, went missing and when he did not return or answer the phone, such F.I.R. Was lodged at the above Police Station.
3. ' From record of the cell phone of the said Muhammad Ateeq, one mobile phone was traced which belonged to one Mst. Shamshad Bibi, who was residing in the same vicinity as that of the complainant but was surprisingly absent from her house and was also not responding to telephone calls made at her mobile phone. After filing of the F.I.R. Police apprehended the said Mst.
4. Shamshad Bibi and her brother Irfan Mehmood and during investigation/interrogation, the said Irfan Mehmood confessed to the murder of said Muhammad Ateeq and led the police to the recovery of the dead body of the said Muhammad Ateeq from his house. Both these accused persons are behind bars and are facing trial and challan has been submitted wherein the name of the present applicant has been shown in Column 2.
5. ' It is contended by the learned counsel for the applicant that no role has been attributed to the applicant nor any evidence connecting him with the crime has been gathered by the prosecution.
6. He also submits that accused Shamshad Bibi and Irfan Mehmood have confessed their crime and are facing trial. The house from where the dead body of the deceased was recovered also belongs to said Irfan Mehmood.
7. ' Learned counsel for the State submits that in such cases only circumstantial evidence can be collected and such evidence in the form of telephone number gathered by the prosecution. He submits that in such circumstances no case for bail is made out.
8. The complainant is present in Court along with his counsel and states that he has no objection if the bail granted to the applicant is confirmed. According to the counsel for the complainant the main culprits a behind the bars and facing trial.
9. ' I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record.
10. ' It is correct that in such cases only circumstantial evidence can be collected and in this case also cell phone of Shamshad Bibi led to her arrest and later on accused Irfan Mehmood was also arrested who confessed to the murder of the said deceased and the dead body was also recovered on his pointation from his house. There is nothing on record at the moment to show that the present applicant also resided in the said house. Therefore, a case for extension of benefit of bail to the applicant has been made out.
11. ' Accordingly, bail granted to the applicant vide order, dated 19-1-2009 is confirmed on the same terms and conditions. However, the applicant is directed to associate himself with the investigation/ proceedings and in case he fails to do so the bail may be cancelled.