USMAN TARIQ vs THE STATE and another
The petitioner, Usman Tariq, sought post-arrest bail in case F.I.R. No. 383 registered under section 302 and subsequently section 201 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, relating to the qatl-e-amd of the complainant's brother. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to bail on the ground of further inquiry under section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, given the considerable delay of two years in bringing forward prosecution evidence including the last seen evidence, identification test, extra-judicial confession of a co-accused, and recovery of the crime weapon. The Lahore High Court held that the significant delay of over two years in recording evidence and conducting the identification test brought the case within the scope of subsection (2) of section 497, Cr.P.C., requiring further inquiry into the petitioner's guilt. The petition was consequently accepted and the petitioner admitted to bail, with the court clarifying that the observations made were tentative and restricted to the bail matter.
- Does a delay of two years in conducting an identification test and collecting prosecution evidence attract further inquiry under section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Is an accused entitled to post-arrest bail when the incriminating evidence against him surfaces two years after the alleged incident?
- Are observations made by a court while deciding a bail petition binding at the subsequent trial stage?
- Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 201, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
CH. IFTIKHAR HUSSAIN, J.---Petitioner Usman Tariq through the instant petition has prayed for after arrest bail in case F.I.R. No,383 originally registered under section 302, P.P.C. with police station Shandara Town, District Lahore on 21-5-2008. Later on, the police have added the offence under section 201, P.P.C. in the same.
2. Briefly the prosecution case is that on 21-5-2008 at about 2-45 a.m. he and one Mst. Sobia, in furtherance of their common intention, have committed the qatl-e-amd of deceased Muhammad Ishaq, the brother of the complainant.
3. After hearing the learned council for the parties and perusing the record, I find that the prosecution so far has brought on the record, the evidence of last scene, identification test, extra judicial confession of co-accused Mst. Sobia and recovery of crime weapon carbine from him. It is interesting to note that such evidence has come on the record after about two years of the alleged incident. For instance, one of these is that he statedly was arrested on 23-5-2010 and put to identification test on 26-6-2010. This was more than one month after his arrest and two years after the alleged incident. Almost similar is the position of the other pieces of the prosecution evidence on the record against him. The alleged recovery was also more than two years after the alleged incident. There while, the question of evidentiary value of such pieces of the prosecution evidence on record is a matter to be more appropriately gone into at trial. Hence, I am clear in my mind that the mischief of subsection (2) of section 497, Cr.P.C. is amply attracted to his case requiring further inquiry into his guilt.
4. In these circumstances. of the case, I have been persuaded to hold that the case for his enlargement on bail has been made out.
5. I, therefore, accept this petition and admit him to bail subject to his furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs,2,00,000 (Rupees two lac only) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned Sessions Judge, Lahore.
6. However, it is hereby clarified that the above observations are tentative in nature and "meant only for the disposal of the matter in hand. These shall have no hearing at all on anybody's case at trial.
Cited by 1 case
- MUHAMMAD NAWAZ alias DOCTOR vs The STATE 2014 YLR 1924