LUQMAN alias PEHLAWAN vs DAUD and another
This criminal petition arises from a bail application filed by the accused petitioner, Luqman alias Pehlawan, seeking post-arrest bail in case F.I.R. No. 740 dated 19-7-2012 registered at Police Station Pahari Pura, Peshawar, under sections 302, 148, 149, and 109 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, following the refusal of bail by the lower forum. The core legal question concerns whether the petitioner's delayed nomination and the sufficiency of the available record, including unverified mobile phone data, warrant further inquiry into his alleged involvement in an unseen murder. The Peshawar High Court held that since the F.I.R. charged unknown persons, the subsequent nomination after a significant delay, coupled with the lack of concrete material connecting the petitioner to the offense, brought his case within the scope of further probe under section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. Consequently, the court allowed the petition and directed the release of the petitioner on post-arrest bail subject to furnishing appropriate sureties.
- Whether post-arrest bail can be granted when the accused is nominated in an unseen crime after a significant delay?
- Does unverified mobile phone data without its text constitute sufficient material to prima facie connect an accused to an offense for bail refusal?
- Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 148, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 149, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 109, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 164, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
' MAZHAR ALAM KHAN MIANKHEL, J.---The accused petitioner seeks his release on bail in case F.I.R.
No,740 dated 19-7-2012 Police Station Pahari Pura, Peshawar under sections 302/ 148/149/109, P.P.C.
After refusal of the' said concession from the forum below.
2. According to the F.I.R. On 19-7-2012 the local police of Police Station Pahari Pura received information that a dead body is lying at the bank of canal in. Pakha Ghulam Garhi Rahim Dad. On receipt of such information, the police rushed to the spot and found the dead body of deceased Sharif there where the complainant, brother of the deceased, reported the matter at 7-00 hours that his deceased brother Sharif on 17-7-2012 at 15-00 hours went out from his house and did not come back and charged unknown accused for commission of murder of his brother. Later on, on 23-8-2012 and 27-8-2012 the complainant in his statements under section 164, Cr.P.C. Charged accused Khan Agha, Noor Agha, Haidar, Zrawar, Luqman alias Pehlawan (petitioner), Sher Ghani, Mst. Anwar Sultana and Mst. Aisha for the murder of his brother.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the F.I.R. Was lodged by complainant against unknown persons but later on he charged petitioner along with other persons after delay of almost one month. He further argued that the petitioner has been nominated by co-accused Mst. Aisha and Mst. Anwar Sultana in their confessional statements recorded on 25-8-2012 but there is nothing on the record to connect him with the commission of offence; that the case of the petitioner requires further probe and requested for the release of petitioner on bail. Learned State counsel strongly opposed the bail application.
4. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned State counsel and perused the record carefully.
5. Perusal of the record would reveal that no one was charged in the F.I.R. And it was an unseen occurrence. The accused petitioner was later on nominated as an accused in the case but there is nothing material on the record which would connect him with the commission of offence for which he is charged with. Learned State counsel referred to the mobile phone data collected by the I.O.
And submitted that this A would be sufficient to prima facie connect him with the commission of offence but in absence of any text of the said data, one cannot be said to have been involved in the commission of offence and involvement of accused petitioner for the commission of offence thus would call further probe.
6. Hence, this bail petition is allowed and the accused petitioner is directed to be B released on bail subject to furnishing bail bonds to the time of Rs,5,00,000 (Rupees five lacs) with two sureties, each in the like amount, to the satisfaction of the Illaqa Judicial Magistrate/Magistrate on duty. Let it be clear that the petitioner is an Afghan national; the sureties should be local and men of means.
Cited by 2 cases
- AKHTAR ZAMAN Versus State 2018 YLRN 149
- SAIF UR RAHMAN vs The STATE through Additional Advocate-General and another 2018 P Cr. L J 306