NASAR vs The STATE and others
This petition for leave to appeal arose from an order of the Lahore High Court refusing post-arrest bail to the petitioner, Nasar, in a murder case registered under Section 302 and Section 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to bail given the circumstances of the case, specifically regarding the attribution of motive and the investigative findings. The Supreme Court observed that the FIR attributed no motive to the petitioner, the alleged occurrence took place at the co-accused's residence where the petitioner did not reside, and the prosecution witnesses were chance witnesses. Furthermore, the Court noted that while the petitioner was initially found innocent during the first investigation, a subsequent investigation opined his guilt. Balancing these factors, the Court held that the case against the petitioner warranted further inquiry into his guilt. Consequently, the petition was converted into an appeal, allowed, and the petitioner was admitted to post-arrest bail, establishing the principle that conflicting investigative findings combined with a lack of motive and joint liability allegations can constitute grounds for further inquiry under bail jurisprudence.
- Does the absence of a specific motive attributed to an accused in an FIR constitute a ground for further inquiry in bail proceedings?
- Can an accused be granted bail when initial investigation reports declare him innocent but subsequent investigations declare him guilty?
- Does the attribution of a joint role in a murder case preclude a finding that the case requires further inquiry for the purpose of bail?
- Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 34, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER.
ASIF SAEED KHAN KHOSA, J.---Through this petition Nasar petitioner has sought leave to appeal against the order dated 19.01.2016 passed by a learned Judge-in-Chamber of the Lahore, High Court, Lahore in Criminal Miscellaneous No, 15803-B of 2015 whereby post-arrest bail was refused to him in. case FIR No, 500 registered at Police Station Saddar, Chiniot on 15.09.2014 in respect o a offence under section 302, P.P.C. read with section 34, P.P.C.
2. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Additional Prosecutor-General, Punjab appearing for the State and the complainant appearing in person and having gone through the record of investigation of the case we have noticed that according to the FIR the petitioner and his co-accused namely Asghar had allegedly been seen by some prosecution witnesses pressing the 'throat of Waqar Hussain deceased at the Dera of Asghar co-accused. The FIR itself shows that the petitioner had no motive to kill the deceased but the motive was directed A against an uncle of the deceased and the place of occurrence wag the Dera of Asghar co- accused whereas the petitioner did not live at that Dera. The FIR alleges a joint role of the petitioner and his co-accused and according to the complainant party's own version the eye-witnesses' happened to see the occurrence only per chance. During the initial investigation the petitioner had been, opined to be innocent and his name had taken place in column No, 2 of the Challan but we have been informed that after submission of the Challan before the trial court a fresh investigation had been conducted and after that fresh investigation the petitioner had been opined to be guilty.
In view of lack of motive vis-a-vis the present petitioner and a joint role having been attributed to him along with his co-accused coupled with the initial finding of innocence recorded by the investigating officer we have found the case against the petitioner to be a case calling for further inquiry into his guilt. This petition is, therefore, converted into an appeal and the same is allowed and consequently Nasar petitioner is admitted to bail in the above mentioned criminal case subject to furnishing bail bond in the sum of Rs,1,00,000/- (Rupees one hundred thousand only) with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial court.
Cited by 3 cases
- Muhammad Fayyaz alias Fayyaz vs State and another PLJ 2020 Cr.C. (Lahore) 459
- Bashir Ahmad vs The State and another 2019 LHC 3103, 2020 MLD 52, 2019 LHC 3398
- HAROON BABAR Versus State 2017 YLRN 405