Pakistan Case Law
2010 MLD 766

MUHAMMAD BILAL vs THE STATE and another

⭐ Prefer in Google
Citation2010 MLD 766
CourtLahore High Court
Case No.Criminal Miscellaneous No, 3920/B of 2009
Date2009-11-04
Judge(s)Hafiz Abdul Rehman Ansari
ResultBail granted
AI Summary — generated from this judgment; read the full text below and verify before relying on it.

This is a criminal petition filed under Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 seeking post-arrest bail in a case involving an offence under Section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question concerns whether the petitioner, who was not nominated in the F.I.R. of a blind murder and whose only connecting evidence is the alleged recovery of the deceased's silver ring, is entitled to the concession of bail on the basis of further inquiry and benefit of doubt. The Lahore High Court accepted the petition and admitted the petitioner to bail, holding that the implication of the petitioner was doubtful and that the benefit of doubt at the bail stage must be resolved in favor of the accused. The key principle laid down is that where a case is based on circumstantial evidence or a blind murder where the accused is unnamed and the prosecution's connecting evidence is tentative, the benefit of doubt must be extended to the accused even at the pre-trial bail stage.

Questions settled in this judgment
  • Whether an unnamed accused in a blind murder case is entitled to post-arrest bail when the sole connecting evidence is a disputed recovery?
  • Does the benefit of doubt apply at the bail stage in favor of an accused person?
  • Can bail be granted when the prosecution's evidence connecting the petitioner to the crime is tentative and raises a case of further inquiry?
Laws & provisions referred
  • Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
  • Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
post-arrest bailblind murderbenefit of doubtfurther inquirycircumstantial evidencerecovery

ORDER

' HAFIZ ABDUL REHMAN ANSARI, J.---Through this petition under section 497, Cr.P.C., petitioner Muhammad Bilal son of Allah Yar, seeks after-arrest bail in case F.I.R. No,98, dated 14-4-2009, registered at Police Station Fateh Shah, District Vehari, for an offence under section 302, P.P.C., at the instance of Abdul Ghafoor, respondent No,2.

2. Brief facts, as narrated in the F.I.R., are that a dead body (later on to be identified as the body of Rashid Ahmad) lying in a locked box was recovered from the official place of canal P.I. Near the land of Farooq Ahmed below the eastern Patri of the Canal.

3. Bail has been declined to the petitioner by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Burewala, vide order, dated 13-7-2009.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that it was a blind murder, the petitioner is not nominated in the F.I.R.; only connecting evidence in the hand of the prosecution is the recovery of silver ring of the deceased allegedly effected at the instance of the petitioner. Makes reliance on the case reported in PLD 1989 SC 585. Further submits that the case of the petitioner is of further inquiry.

5. On the other side, learned ADPP submits that the challan was submitted on 26-5-2009; that the recovery of silver ring of the deceased from the petitioner connects him with the occurrence therefore the petitioner is not entitled to be released on bail.

6. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the police record. The petitioner is not nominated in the F.I.R. It was a blind murder, the implication of the petitioner apparently is doubtful. The benefit of doubt would go to the accused even at bail stage. I am fortified from the judgments reported as Babar Hussain v. Muhammad Rashid Khan and another (2000 PCr.LJ 980 Supreme Court (AJ&K). In another ease reported as Amir v. The State (PLD 1972 SC 277), the honourable Supreme Court observed that for purposes of bail, law not to be stretched in favour of prosecution; benefit of doubt, if any arising, must go to accused.

7. At present apparently there is no evidence in the land of the prosecution to connect the petitioner with the commission of the offence. Therefore, this petition is allowed and the petitioner is admitted to bail subject to the deposit of Rs,2,00,000 (Rupees two lacs) in cash by the petitioner with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court.

8. The observations made in this bail-granting order are of tentative nature, which will not prejudice the case of either side during trial.

Cited by 1 case

For educational and research use only — not legal advice. Verify against the official report before relying on it. See our Disclaimer.