NAVEED and another vs SHER MUHAMMAD and anothers
This matter concerns a post-arrest bail petition filed by the accused, Naveed and Bilal, in a case involving charges under Sections 302, 34, 201, and 202 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the petitioners were entitled to bail given the nature of the evidence and the circumstances of the case. The Peshawar High Court held that the petitioners were entitled to bail, determining that their case fell within the scope of 'further inquiry.' The Court reasoned that there was an unexplained three-year delay in lodging the FIR, a lack of ocular evidence, and that the prosecution's case relied on confessional statements that were exculpatory in nature. Additionally, no material evidence or recovery of the weapon of offense was effected upon the petitioners' arrest. The key principle laid down is that the mere heinousness of a crime is not a sufficient ground for the refusal of bail when the prosecution fails to establish a prima facie connection between the accused and the crime through direct or circumstantial evidence.
- Does an unexplained delay of three years in lodging an FIR constitute grounds for further inquiry in a bail application?
- Can bail be refused solely on the basis of the heinousness of the crime charged?
- Is a case considered one of 'further inquiry' when the prosecution relies on exculpatory confessional statements and lacks ocular or material evidence?
- Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 34, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 201, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 202, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
' Petitioners Naveed and Bilal seek their release on bail in case FIR No, 857 dated 29.9.2015 under Sections, 302, 34, 201 and 202, PPC, 1860 Police Station Mathra, Peshawar.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that accused/petitioners have falsely been charged in the present case. That occurrence took place three years back from the date of lodging of FIR. That complainant is not the eye-witness of the occurrence. There is neither any ocular account nor any circumstantial evidence on record to connect the petitioners with the crime. That no direct or circumstantial evidence has been collected by the prosecution showing the connection of the accused/petitioners. All these facts move the case of petitioner one of further inquiry.
3. These contentions were denied by State counsel and contended that petitioners are directly charged in the FIR alongwith other co-accused. That there is strong circumstantial evidence which prima facie connects the accused with crime fall within prohibitory clause.
4. Valuable arguments of learned counsel for the parties heard and available record perused.
5. Record would reveal that though accused/petitioners are directly charged in the FIR and motive for the occurrence was disclosed as dispute over family matter between parents of accused/petitioners, but the question for determination is that whether present petitioners are involved for committing the murder of their father in connivance with others. Admittedly the complainant, brother of deceased, had reported the matter to Police in respect of the occurrence which had allegedly been committed three years before the report. There is no ocular account of the occurrence. The case of the prosecution is based on the confessional statements of petitioners which are exculpatory in nature. During investigation nothing material was collected to connect the accused/petitioners with crime. After the arrest of petitioners neither any recovery/discovery was effected on their pointation nor the weapon of offence i,e, wooden bar was recovered. Mere heinousness of crime is no ground for refusal of bail. There is unexplained delay of long three years in lodging the FIR. The case of accused/petitioners falls within the definition of further inquiry.
6. Thus in the light of above discussion bail petition in hand is accepted and the accused/petitioners are admitted to bail provided that each of them furnishes bail bonds to the tune of Rs, 3,00,000/- with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Judicial Magistrate.
7. Above were the reasons of short order of his Court of even date.