GHULAM MURTAZA alias BUBAL vs The STATE and another
This matter concerns a petition for post-arrest bail filed by Ghulam Murtaza alias Bubal, who was accused in an FIR registered under Sections 302 and 392 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, involving a dacoity and murder incident. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to bail given the nature of the evidence presented by the prosecution. The Court observed that the petitioner was implicated based on a supplementary statement relying on weak evidence, specifically the testimony of witnesses regarding a dark-night occurrence where the assailants' features were not initially described. Furthermore, the Court noted that the investigation had concluded and that the recovery of a veil and an alleged extra-judicial confession were insufficient to deny bail at this stage. Consequently, the Court held that the petitioner's case fell within the scope of further inquiry and granted the bail application. The key principle laid down is that where the prosecution's evidence is weak and the investigation is complete, continued incarceration serves no beneficial purpose, thereby entitling the accused to the concession of bail.
- Does the recovery of a non-weapon item like a veil constitute sufficient incriminating evidence to deny bail?
- Is an accused entitled to bail when the prosecution's case rests on a supplementary statement following a dark-night occurrence with unidentified assailants?
- When does an accused's case qualify for the concession of bail under the principle of 'further inquiry'?
- Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 392, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
' FARRUKH GU.LZAR AWAN, J.-- Ghulam Murtaza alias Bubal, the petitioner has sought concession of post arrest bail in case FIR No,653 dated 28.8.2015, under Sections 302/392, P.P.C., registered at Police Station Gadai District Dera Ghazi Khan.
2. Pithily and saga as contained in the crime report is that on 27.8.2015 at 11:35 p.m. Three unknown dacoits having muffled faces, waylaid the complainant and his brother Ghulam Raza near Jaboji Bridge when they were going back to their house on motorcycle. The complainant did not stop the motorcycle whereupon they made indiscriminate firing and one of the fires hit Ghulam Raza on his back, who was on rear seat; he succumbed to the said injury at some distance.
3. Arguments pro and contra heard. Record perused.
4. The petitioner was implicated in this case on the supplementary statement made by the complainant on 28.8.2015 wherein he showed his belief regarding involvement of the petitioner in this occurrence being based on the evidence of Waj Takkar of Muhammad Kamal and Ghulam Mustafa PWs, which is very weak type of evidence. It was a dark-night occurrence wherein features of the assailants have not been mentioned in the FIR. The petitioner was arrested in this case on 21.10.2015 and during investigation nothing incriminating was brought on record against him except the recovery of veil (Lungi/Mandasa) and extra judicial confession allegedly made by him before Haji Siddique and Nadir Hussain PWs. Veracity of said recovery of veil, not being the weapon of offence, and that of inadmissible alleged extra judicial confession, shall be thrashed at trial stage.
' The investigation has been finalized and the continued incarceration of the petitioner would serve no beneficial purpose to the prosecution. All these factors have successfully made out case of the petitioner being one of further inquiry, therefore, he is entitled to the concession of bail. I am fortified from the case-law cited as "Allah Ditta v. The State and others (2012 SCM R 184) in this context.
' In view of above, the petition in hand is allowed and the petitioner is admitted to bail subject to his furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs,200,000/- (rupees two lac) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of learned trial Court.
Cited by 2 cases
- Waqas Ahmed vs The State and another 2022 YLR 568
- MUHAMMAD ALI KHAN alias CHOTO Versus State 2020 YLRN 45