RIZWAN SADDIQUE vs STATE & another
This criminal petition has been filed by the petitioner Rizwan Saddique seeking post-arrest bail in FIR No. 259 registered under Sections 302, 109, and 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question concerns whether the petitioner's subsequent implication through a retracted extra-judicial confession and circumstantial evidence constitutes a case of further inquiry under criminal procedure. The Lahore High Court accepted the petition and granted post-arrest bail to the petitioner. The court held that where an extra-judicial confession is prima facie unsupported by strong evidence, witnesses have resiled, no recovery was made during physical remand, and no motive is attributed, the case falls within the ambit of further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, warranting the grant of bail.
- Does a retracted extra-judicial confession unsupported by strong evidence bring a case within the ambit of further inquiry for the purpose of bail?
- Can post-arrest bail be granted when no recovery is made during physical remand and no motive is attributed to the accused?
- Whether the lack of independent corroboration in a circumstantial evidence case justifies the release of an accused on bail under Section 497(2), Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 109, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 34, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 161, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 497(2), Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
Through the instant petition, the petitioner Rizwan Saddique seeks his post-arrest bail in a case arising out of FIR No, 259, dated 13.07.2010, registered with Police Station Saddar, District Rahim Yar Khan, for the offences under Sections 302, 109, 34, P.P.C.
2. The prosecution story, as per FIR, in brief, is that some unknown person committed the murder of Raheel Akhtar, nephew of the complainant. Initially, the present petitioner was the witness of the said occurrence but subsequently brother of the deceased namely Sajeel got the matter re- investigated, during which, the present petitioner was found involved with the allegation that he along with his co-accused committed murder of Raheel Akhtar on 13.07.2010 at 10:35 a.m. and the dead body was lying in the bedroom.
3. Arguments heard. Record perused.
4. As stated above, the petitioner was initially a witness of the occurrence but later-on, during the course of re-investigation, after almost 2 months of the occurrence, the petitioner was implicated through statement made by brother of the deceased namely Sajeel, which discloses extra judicial confession being made by the petitioner before Khalid Saeed (complainant) and Zulfiqar Ali, PW.
Said, Khalid Saeed in his statement recorded u/S. 161, Cr.P.C. never stated about the alleged extra- judicial confession being made before him by the present petitioner. Likewise, Zulfiqar Ali, the other witness of extra judicial confession, also sworn an affidavit, whereby he resiled from his earlier statement made u/S. 161, Cr.P.C. Prima facie, the alleged extra judicial confession is not supported by any strong evidence. Even otherwise, the witnesses are related to the deceased, who, it appears, never tried to apprehend the unarmed petitioner nor made any independent statement before the police. From the record, it appears that no independent inquiry was made by the police to dig-out the truth. Tentatively, it is observed that this is a case of circumstantial evidence, which would be seen by the learned trial Court after recording of independent evidence on each circumstance having chain link. All these facts, bring the case of the present petitioner within the ambit of further inquiry.
5. Despite the petitioner being remained on physical remand, nothing was recovered from his person to connect him with the unseen occurrence. Regarding innocence of the present petitioner, Shamshad etc. have got recorded their statements u/S. 161, Cr.PC. and also sworn their affidavits, which are on record. Besides, no motive is attributed to the petitioner, who is behind the bars since 02.12.2010 and is no more required for any purpose. His, further detention in Jail would be of no avail to the prosecution, when the trial is also not in sight.
6. For the foregoing reasons, the case of the petitioner falls within the ambit of further inquiry under Section 497(2), Cr.P.C, therefore, this petition is accepted and the petitioner is admitted to post- arrest bail subject to his furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs,2,00,000/- with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Deputy Registrar (Judi.) of this Court.