SHAFQAT HAYAT vs THE STATE
This matter comes before the Lahore High Court through a petition seeking post-arrest bail for the petitioner in respect of case F.I.R. No. 122 dated 18-3-2009, registered under sections 302 and 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 at Police Station Saddar Berooni, District Rawalpindi. The core legal question is whether the petitioner is entitled to post-arrest bail when he was not named in the initial FIR, was implicated through a supplementary statement of doubtful evidentiary value, was declared innocent during police investigation, and no incriminating material was recovered from his possession. The court held that since the petitioner was found innocent by the police, no direct evidence besides the supplementary statement existed, and investigation was complete with no requirement for further physical custody, the case fell within the scope of further inquiry. The petition was consequently allowed, admitting the petitioner to post-arrest bail subject to surety bonds.
- Is an accused entitled to post-arrest bail when implicated through a supplementary statement rather than the initial FIR?
- Does being declared innocent during police investigation constitute grounds for further inquiry under criminal jurisprudence?
- Whether the absence of recovery of incriminating material from the physical custody of the accused justifies the grant of bail?
- Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 34, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
' TARIQ SHAMIM, J.---Through this petition, the petitioner seeks post-arrest bail in case F.I.R. No,122, dated 18-3-2009 for offences under section 302/34, P.P.C. Registered at Police Station Saddar Berooni, District Rawalpindi.
2. Briefly, the facts of the case are that the dead-body of the son of the complainant was recovered from a taxi, as a consequence whereof the aforesaid F.I.R. Was lodged.
3. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner was not named in the F.I.R, and was implicated on the basis of a supplementary statement which was of no consequence; that the motive behind the murder was ascribed to co-accused Nadeem as the deceased had illicit relation with his wife; that the petitioner remained on physical remand for ten days but no incriminating material was recovered from his possession and that during investigation he was declared innocent by the police, therefore, his case was one of further inquiry.
4. The learned Deputy Prosecutor- General assisted by the learned counsel for the complainant has vehemently opposed the petition.
5. I have heard the learned counsel and gone through the record.
6. In this case the son of the complainant was murdered by some unknown persons and consequently, the F.I.R, was lodged against unknown assailants by the complainant. Subsequently, the petitioner was implicated on the basis of a supplementary statement which does not have much evidentiary value. During investigation no incriminating material was recovered from the possession of the petitioner who was found innocent as, according to the police, with the exception of supplementary statement there is no other direct evidence available on the record connecting the petitioner with the crime. Investigation of the case has been finalized and at this stage, the petitioner is not required by the police for any purpose.
7. For what has been stated above, this petition is allowed and the petitioner is admitted to bail subject to his furnishing bail bond in the sum of Rs,1,00,000 with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court.