MUHAMMAD WASEEM vs THE STATE and others
This petition for leave to appeal arises from the refusal of bail to the petitioner, Muhammad Waseem, in a criminal case. The core legal question concerns whether the petitioner is entitled to post-arrest bail given the evidentiary gaps in the prosecution's case. The Supreme Court observed that the petitioner was not nominated in the First Information Report, no test identification parade was conducted to incriminate him, and there was no forensic link between the recovered items (pistol and cash) and the alleged crime. Furthermore, the Court noted that the alleged extra-judicial confession appeared to be a joint confession, which is inadmissible in evidence, and that the witnesses providing Wajtakkar evidence had delayed their testimony. Given that the investigation was finalized and a challan had been submitted, the Court held that the petitioner's physical custody was unnecessary. Consequently, the petition was converted into an appeal, allowed, and the petitioner was admitted to bail. The judgment reinforces the principle that bail should be granted when the prosecution's case lacks prima facie evidentiary support and further incarceration is not required for investigation.
- Is a joint extra-judicial confession admissible in evidence?
- Does the absence of a test identification parade and non-nomination in the FIR constitute grounds for granting bail?
- Is physical custody of an accused necessary after the submission of a challan?
1. ' ASIF SAEED KHAN KHOSA, J.---Admittedly Muhammad Waseem petitioner had not been nominated in the F.I.R. And also that no test identification parade has been held in this case so as to positively' incriminate the petitioner. There is nothing available on the record to connect the recovered pistol and cash with the pistol allegedly used in the incident in issue and the cash allegedly stolen therein. The extra-judicial confession allegedly made by the petitioner and his co- accused prima facie has the trappings of a joint confession which is inadmissible in evidence. The witnesses of Wajtakkar evidence had come forward to implicate the petitioner with a noticeable delay. The investigation of this case has already been finalized and a Challan has been submitted and, A thus, physical custody of the petitioner is not required at this juncture for the purposes of investigation. For all these reasons this petition is converted into an appeal and the same is allowed and, consequently, the petitioner is admitted to bail subject to furnishing bail bond in the sum of Rs,50,000 (Rupees fifty thousand only) with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court.
Cited by 1 case
- MUHAMMAD ALI KHAN alias CHOTO Versus State 2020 YLRN 45