Muhammad Jameel vs The State, etc,
The petitioner Muhammad Jameel sought post-arrest bail in case F.I.R. No. 385 dated 01.11.2016, registered under Sections 302, 365 and 201 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 at Police Station Shalimar, District Lahore, on allegations of abducting and murdering Muhammad Ijaz. The core legal question before the Lahore High Court was whether the petitioner made out a case for the grant of post-arrest bail. The Court dismissed the bail petition, holding that the petitioner was connected with the offence through last-seen evidence, witness accounts of seeing him dispose of the dead body, recovery of the crime weapon and motorcycle at his instance, and the absence of a plausible ground for false implication considering the relationship between the parties. The key principle laid down is that where incriminating material including last-seen evidence and consequential recoveries prima facie connect an accused to a heinous crime, post-arrest bail is rightly declined.
- Whether post-arrest bail can be granted when an accused is connected to the crime through last-seen evidence and incriminating recoveries?
- Does the absence of initial nomination in the F.I.R. entitle an accused to bail when subsequent witness statements implicate him?
- Are recoveries of crime weapons and vehicles at the instance of the accused sufficient to decline post-arrest bail?
- Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 365, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 201, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
SYED SHAHBAZ ALI RIZVI, J. --- Muhammad Jameel, petitioner seeks post-arrest bail in case F.I.R.
No. 385, dated 01.11.2016, offence under Sections 302, 365 and 201, P.P.C. registered at Police Station Shalimar, District Lahore.
2. The allegation against the petitioner is that he, after abducting Muhammad ljaz, son of the complainant, committed his murder.
3. Heard. Record perused.
4. It has been noticed that though the petitioner is not nominated in the crime report yet on the day of registration of this case, Wajid Ali and Muhammad Yousaf got recorded their statements to the effect that they witnessed the deceased lastly in the company of the petitioner on the day of occurrence. Similarly, on the same day, investigation agency recorded the statements of Liaqat Ali and Abdullah witnesses who allegedly saw the petitioner while throwing the dead-body of the deceased tied in a bag, in the canal. After the arrest of the petitioner, crime weapon {{URDU TEXT}} stands recovered at his instance. He also led to the recovery of motorcycle bearing registration No. LEO-1231 used for transportation during the occurrence. Keeping in view the relationship of the complainant party with the petitioner, prima facie, reflects adverse to the possibility of his false implication. During the investigation, the petitioner has been found connected with the offence. The petitioner stands indicated by the learned Trial Court and the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the complainant ensures incessant availability of private prosecution witnesses before the learned Trial Court. In view of above, this Court is not inclined to grant post-arrest bail to the 'petitioner hence, this petition stands dismissed.
However, it is made clear that the observations made supra are tentative in nature, relevant only for the disposal of this petition and shall not influence the learned Trial Court in any manner, whatsoever, during the trial.