AKMAL vs THE STATE
This bail application arises from a criminal case where the applicant, Salman Hamid, was charged under Sections 302 and 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for the murder of Uzair Malik. The core legal question was whether the circumstantial evidence, specifically the recovery of a motorcycle and a pistol from the applicant, was sufficient to establish his involvement in the crime at the pre-trial stage, or whether the case warranted further inquiry under the bail provisions. The Court held that the mere recovery of the motorcycle and the lack of a forensic ballistic report connecting the recovered pistol to the crime scene empties rendered the prosecution's case inconclusive at this stage. Consequently, the Court granted bail to the applicant, holding that the case fell within the scope of Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, as the evidence required further inquiry. The key principle laid down is that recovery of items alone, without forensic corroboration linking them to the specific commission of an offense, is insufficient to deny bail when the case otherwise necessitates further investigation.
- Does the mere recovery of a motorcycle used in an alleged offense constitute sufficient evidence to deny bail?
- When does a criminal case fall within the scope of Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 for the purpose of granting bail?
- Is the absence of a ballistic report linking a recovered weapon to crime scene evidence a valid ground for granting bail?
- Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 34, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 164, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 13-D, Arms Ordinance 1965
ORDER
1. ' SALMAN HAMID, son of Ajmal (Applicant) is booked in F.I.R. No,168 of 2011 of Police Station Shahra-e- Faisal offences punishable under sections 302 and 34 Pakistan Penal Code.
2. ' Brief background of the case is that it was alleged in the statement recorded under section 164, Cr.P.C. (subsequently added in the F.I.R.) by one Shoaib Khan that he received a call that his nephew Uzaiir Malik, son of Shahid Malik received injuries and that he is admitted in Jinnah Hospital where he later on died. Motorcycle No, KDQ-8859 that was allegedly used for commission of offence woes found in possession of the applicant from which place a bullet and two empties were also secured.
3. ' It was argued by the learned counsel for the applicant that mere recovery of motorcycle was not enough to implicate the applicant inasmuch as that there was nothing other than the motorcycle incriminating the applicant and that it require further inquiry whether at the time of incident of killing Uzair Malik, applicant-used the motorcycle and that it is also not clear and/or has not come on record, which still require further inquiry, that indeed the bullet that was recovered along with two' empties had been released from the licenced pistol recovered from the applicant from his house.
4. ' Learned Addl. Prosecutor-General appearing for the State vehemently opposed the application and stated that circumstantial evidence is the best evidence and looking at the facts of the case it is clear the applicant used the motorcycle to kill Uzair Malik and then ran away which motorcycle was subsequently recovered from him.
5. I have heard the learned counsel on either side have gone through the record. It is not the case of the prosecution that the pistol that was recovered from the applicant was un licenced and or no case under section 13-D Arms Ordinance is pending against the applicant and/or there was no F.I.R. Registered in this respect. Ballistic A report as of day to show that the two empties were released from the pistol of the applicant is on record. Merely that motorcycle was recovered from him is not enough evidence to show that the applicant was present at the time of incident and that he killed Uzair Malik. All this require further inquiry.
6. In view of the above facts and circumstances, present case falls within the meaning of subsection
(2) of section 497, Cr.P.C. And in my opinion require further inquiry. The applicant is, therefore, B enlarged on bail subject to his furnishing a solvent surety in an amount of Rs,100,000 (Rupees One Hundred Thousand only) and P.R. Bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court.
7. ' This application is disposed of accordingly.