Mian Sajidon Subhani. vs The State etc.
This criminal petition was filed by Mian Sajidon Subhani seeking post-arrest bail in case F.I.R. No. 286 registered under sections 302, 148, 149, and 201 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 at Police Station Samanabad, Lahore, involving allegations of murder committed by forming an unlawful assembly and causing a fatal firearm injury to the deceased. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to post-arrest bail in light of a co-accused's judicial confession, a resiled statement by an eyewitness, and successive investigations. The Lahore High Court dismissed the petition, holding that the petitioner was prima facie connected to the crime falling within the prohibitory clause of section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, noting tampering regarding the eyewitness and serious infirmities in the confessional statements. The key principle laid down is that bail will be denied when sufficient incriminating material connects the accused to an offense within the prohibitory clause, and attempts to tamper with eyewitness evidence through common representation undermine pleas for further inquiry at the bail stage.
- Whether the petitioner is entitled to post-arrest bail when charged with a murder falling within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 Cr.P.C.?
- Does a co-accused's judicial confession make out a case for further inquiry when contradicted by medical and ocular evidence?
- What is the legal effect on bail proceedings when an eyewitness resiles from their statement under suspicious circumstances of common legal representation?
- Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 148, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 149, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 201, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 22-A, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 22-B, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
Through this petition, Mian Sajidon Subhani petitioner has sought post-arrest bail in case F.I.R.
No.286 dated 04.6.2014 registered under sections 302, 148, 149, 201 P.P.C. At Police Station Samanabad, Lahore.
2. Briefly, the allegation against the petitioner is that on the day of occurrence i.e. On 04.6.2014 he along with his co-accused while armed with firearms weapons, formed unlawful assembly and in prosecution of the common object of the unlawful assembly committed Qatl-e-Amd of Muhammad Iqbal Meer, brother of the complainant.
3. I have heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record.
4. As per F.I.R, the petitioner caused fire-arm injury on the chest of the deceased-Muhammad Iqbal Meer which was supported by the post mortem report i.e. Injury No.2-A and the same was declared fatal. The learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the co-accused-Faisal Butt got recorded his judicial confession at the time of framing of charge and pleaded guilty and eye witness, namely, Malik Tariq Javaid has sworn an affidavit and also submitted petition under section 22-A, 22-B Cr.P.C. Before the learned Ex. Office Justice of Peace wherein he contended that he was not present at the place of occurrence, which makes case of the petitioner one of further inquiry but the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner has no force for the reasons that the complainant, who is an eye witness of the occurrence, is yet to be examined. The judicial confession cannot be said to have been corroborated by the extra judicial confession by the same co-accused dated 07.12.2014. There is a very serious infirmity in both confessional statements which destroys the credibility of judicial confession. The ocular account and medical evidence do not lend corroboration regarding the mode and manner of occurrence to the extra judicial confession besides judicial confession. An affidavit and petition under section 22-A, 22-B of Cr.P.C.
Submitted by the eye witness, namely, Malik Tariq Javaid, the witness seems to have resiled from his statement. From the record produced before this court it reveals that the eye witness, namely, Malik Tariq Javaid and the accused/petitioner along with co-accused, namely, Muhammad Faisal were represented in the court through one learned counsel namely, Mr. Munazzar Ghani Chaudhary, Advocate, therefore, this is a case of tempering. In successive investigations, the petitioner/accused had been found to be fully involved in the crime and consequently challan in the case had been submitted. Prima facie, sufficient material is available on the record to connect the petitioner with the commission of the offence, falling within the prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C.
5. In these peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, I have not been persuaded to extend the petitioner the relief of bail. The petition in hand, therefore, is hereby dismissed. It is however, made clear that any observation made above shall not influence the mind of the learned trial court in any manner.