Muhammad Shahid vs The State And Another
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 prosecution alleged that the victim, Muhammad Bilal, was murdered and his body recovered from a canal, with the petitioner subsequently implicated via a supplementary statement. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to bail given the nature of the evidence presented. The petitioner argued that the occurrence was unseen and that his implication in the supplementary statement lacked direct knowledge or substantial evidentiary support. The prosecution relied on the recovery of a 30-bore pistol and live ammunition, and the petitioner's alleged guilt during the investigation. The Court held that the nomination of the petitioner in the supplementary statement, without disclosing the basis for such accusation, rendered the prosecution's case against him one of further inquiry. Consequently, the Court admitted the petitioner to bail, establishing the principle that an unsubstantiated supplementary statement, absent other direct evidence, warrants further inquiry for bail purposes.
- Does the nomination of an accused in a supplementary statement without disclosing the basis for such accusation constitute grounds for further inquiry in bail proceedings?
- Is the recovery of a weapon sufficient to deny bail when the primary accusation against the accused rests on an unsubstantiated 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 10.07.2008 under sections 302, 34, 201, PPC registered a 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. Contends that according to F.I.R. It was an unseen occurrence; that petitioner alongwith Boota coaccused 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 alongwith 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 alongwith 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. 1,0, 000/- (Rupees one lac only) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of learned Trial Court.