GUL WALI---Petitioner vs UMAR and another---Respondents
The petitioner, Gul Wali, sought post-arrest bail in a case registered under sections 302/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, concerning the murder of Muhammad Wali. The incident occurred at night, and the initial FIR was registered against unknown persons. The complainant subsequently implicated the petitioner and a co-accused in a statement recorded under section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 over a month later, without disclosing the source of his information. The Court observed that there was no ocular account of the incident, no judicial confession, and no incriminating recovery from the petitioner. The Court held that the petitioner's participation in the offence required further inquiry under section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. Furthermore, the Court ruled that mere abscondence does not preclude the grant of bail when the case otherwise merits it on the basis of available material. Consequently, the petition was allowed, and the petitioner was admitted to bail subject to furnishing bail bonds.
- Does the mere abscondence of an accused preclude the grant of bail when the case otherwise merits it?
- Can bail be granted when the initial FIR is against unknown persons and the subsequent implication lacks a disclosed source of information?
- Does the absence of incriminating recovery and judicial confession entitle an accused to bail under the principle of further inquiry?
- Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 34, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 164, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
1. ASSADULLAH KHAN CHAMKANI, J.---Petitioner Gul Wali seeks bail in case FIR No,708 dated 09.01.2011, registered under sections 302/34, P.P.C., in Police Station Abdul Hameed Shaheed Shabqadar, wherein he along with co-accused Sher Wali, is charged for committing the murder of Muhammad Wali deceased with firearm on 09.10.2011 at 1900 hours on a thoroughfare situated in village Attaki.
2. 2.Arguments heard and record perused.
3. 3.Admittedly, neither complainant nor anybody else has come forward to furnish the ocular account of the incident. The incident is nocturnal and complainant on receipt of information qua murder of his deceased son reached the spot and shifted his dead body. In his initial report he charged unknown culprit/culprits for murder of his son. After a period of more than a month on 16.11.2011, complainant Umer recorded his statement under section 164, Cr.P.C., wherein he charged the petitioner and his co-accused without disclosing the source of his satisfaction qua complicity of the petitioner in the commission of offence. The petitioner has not confessed his guilt before the competent Court of law nor anything incriminating to prima facie connect him with the commission of offence has been recovered either from his direct or indirect possession. Mere alleged abscondence of the petitioner would not hamper his way of bail when otherwise on merit he is entitled to the concession of bail. On tentative assessment of the material on record and discussed above, participation of the petitioner in the commission of offence requires further probe within the ambit of subsection (2) of section 497, Cr.P.C., hence, I am inclined to exercise the discretion of bail in his favour.
4. 4.Accordingly, this petition is allowed. Accused/petitioner is admitted to bail provided he furnishes bail bonds in the sum of Rs,3,00,000/- with two local, reliable and resourceful sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of learned Illaqa Judicial Magistrate/MOD, concerned