MUHAMMAD ASHFAQ vs STATE, etc
This petition for post-arrest bail arises from FIR No. 70/2012, registered under Sections 302, 397, and 412 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The case involves a 'blind murder' where the deceased's body was discovered in her home, with the petitioner initially not named in the FIR. The petitioner was implicated over a month later via a supplementary statement, supported by the testimony of two witnesses who allegedly saw him leaving the scene and an extra-judicial confession made to a private person. Additionally, police claimed recovery of gold and cash, despite the original FIR containing no mention of theft. The Court observed that the prosecution's case rested on weak evidence and that the recovery appeared to be a fabrication. Emphasizing that the burden of proof in unwitnessed cases is heavy and that the trial had not yet commenced, the Court held that the petitioner could not be incarcerated indefinitely pending trial. Consequently, the petition was allowed, and the petitioner was admitted to bail subject to furnishing bail bonds.
- Is a petitioner entitled to post-arrest bail when the prosecution's case relies on a delayed supplementary statement and questionable recoveries?
- Does the absence of a theft allegation in the initial FIR undermine subsequent police claims of recovery of stolen items?
- Can an accused be kept in custody indefinitely when the trial has not commenced in a case based on weak circumstantial evidence?
- Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 397, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 412, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
Through this petition, the petitioner seeks post arrest bail in case FIR No, 70/2012 dated 29.012012 registered under Sections 302, 397, 412, PPC at Police Station Alpa District Multan,
2. This was a blind murder and according to the complainant on the following day of death of his wife, the body of the deceased was found lying in the washroom of the house. Initially suspicion was raised against one Nasir and one unknown person, However, on 03.03.2012 by means of a supplementary statement, the present petitioner was implicated again on suspicion and at that point of time two prosecution witnesses Muhammad Maqsud and Javed were introduced by assigning them a role that they have seen the accused, present petitioner, while coming out the house of the deceased at the relevant time when probably the occurrence was committed. The extra judicial confession of the present petitioner has also been shown before his maternal uncle, a private person. On his arrest, the recovery of some gold ornaments and cash has also been shown but such recovery is nothing but a padding on the part of the police, as in originally registered FIR the complainant never complained against any theft or missing of any item including jewehy or cash. In such like unwitnessed cases, heavy burden lies on the prosecution to bring home guilt in the accused person, which is not possible without regular trial, the same reportedly has not yet commenced. In such like cases of weak evidence, for present, the petitioner cannot be kept behind the bars for an indefinite period.
3. In view of what has been discussed above, this petition is allowed and petitioner Muhammad Ashfaq is ordered to be released on bail subject to his furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs,2,00,000/- with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of learned trial Court.