ZAFAR ABBAS and others vs The STATE and others
The petitioners sought post-arrest bail in a criminal case arising from FIR No. 183/14 registered under sections 302, 201, and 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 at Police Station Rangpur, District Muzaffargarh, relating to the murder of the complainant's sister. The Lahore High Court examined the record and noted that the petitioners were specifically named in the FIR, confessed their guilt before the police and prosecution witnesses, and pointed out the places of the crime and disposal of the dead body. Furthermore, incriminating material including blood-stained sacks, the deceased's mobile phone, and blood-stained clothes were recovered at their instance. The court observed that the offenses fell within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 and entailed capital punishment. Finding strong and ample connecting material on record, and noting that the trial was underway with charges already framed, the court declined to grant bail. The holding lays down that post-arrest bail is rightly refused when there is strong incriminating evidence, extra-judicial confessions, and recoveries connecting the accused to a heinous crime falling within the prohibitory clause.
- Whether post-arrest bail can be granted to accused persons nominated in the FIR with specific roles in a murder case involving capital punishment?
- Does the recovery of incriminating material and extra-judicial confessions constitute sufficient grounds to deny post-arrest bail under the prohibitory clause of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Can bail be refused when the trial is at the stage of recording prosecution evidence and prima facie sufficient material connects the accused to the offense?
- Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 201, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 34, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 497(1) A, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
ASLAM JAVED MINHAS, J.---The petitioners seek post arrest bail in case FIR No,183/14 dated 31.12.2014, offence under sections 302/201/34, P.P.C., 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 woman 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 confession their guilt before the police as well as three prosecution witnesses that they had murdered the deceased. The petitioners also made confessional statements that where 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) A of Cr.P.C. and entail capital punishment. No reason exists for the complainant to falsely implicate the petitioners with the commission of crime. Challan 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. Resultantly, the instant petition is dismissed. It is pertinent to mention here that the observations made supra did not affect the case of either party.