ZAFAR ABBAS, etc. vs STATE, etc.
The petitioners filed a petition for post-arrest bail in connection with FIR No. 183/14, registered under Sections 302, 201, and 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, regarding the murder of the complainant's sister. The core legal question was whether the petitioners were entitled to bail given the evidence collected during the investigation. The Court observed that the petitioners were specifically named in the FIR, and the prosecution had gathered substantial incriminating material, including extra-judicial confessions, the recovery of blood-stained items, and the deceased's mobile phone. The Court noted that the motive stemmed from familial conflict regarding the deceased's marriage to Petitioner No. 1. Holding that the alleged offences fell within the prohibitory clause of Section 497(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 and carried capital punishment, the Court determined that there were no grounds for false implication. Consequently, the Court dismissed the bail petition, emphasizing that the case was currently at the stage of prosecution evidence and that the available material sufficiently connected the petitioners to the crime.
- Does the existence of extra-judicial confessions and recovery of incriminating evidence constitute sufficient grounds to deny post-arrest bail in a murder case?
- Do offences punishable by death fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Is a bail petition maintainable when the prosecution has submitted a challan and the trial is at the stage of recording evidence?
- Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 201, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 34, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 497(1), Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
' The petitioners seek post arrest bail in case FIR No. 183/14 dated 31.12.2014, offence under Sections 302/201/34, PPC, registered with Police Station Rangpur, District Muzaffargarh.
2. The allegation against the petitioners is that they, in furtherance of their common intention, committed murder of the sister of complainant.
3. Arguments heard. Record perused,
4. The petitioners are named in the FIR with specific role of murder of women folk (sister of the complainant). The deceased was the second wife of the Petitioner No. 1, who was already married and whose children from the first wife were unhappy with the second marriage of their father with Mst. Zareena Mai, deceased. Further, when the dead body was recovered, it could not be identified and the accused persons, after committing the murder, thrown the same in the river. The accused persons confessed their guilt before the police as well as three prosecution witnesses that they had murdered the deceased. The petitioners also made confessional statements that ,here they murdered Mst. Zareena, where they hid the dead body and then thrown the same in the river. This strong, ample and incriminating material is available on the police record to connect the petitioners-accused with the commission of alleged offence in the shape of blood stained sacks vide recovery memo. Dated 23.01.2015, mobile phone of Mst. Zareena, deceased and blood stained clothes of the deceased which were got recovered by Aun Abbas, Petitioner No.2. The offences, with which, the petitioners are charged, fall within the ambit of prohibitory clause of Section 497(1) of, Cr.P.C. And entail capital punishment. No reason exists for the complainant to falsely implicate the petitioners with the commission of crime. Challa' n has been submitted in the learned trial Court, where the charge has been framed and the case is hampering adjudication at the stage of prosecution evidence.
5. For the foregoing reasons, this Court is not inclined to allow the petition in hand. Resultant, the instant petition is dismissed. It is pertinent to mention here that the observations made supra did not effect the case of either party.