SHER ALAM vs The STATE
This matter concerns a post-arrest bail application filed by the petitioner, who was implicated during the investigation for the murder of his stepmother under sections 302 and 460 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The petitioner sought bail, arguing that the case was false, he was not named in the FIR, and the circumstantial evidence was insufficient to connect him to the crime, thereby invoking the principle of further inquiry under section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The prosecution opposed the bail, citing strong circumstantial evidence, including the petitioner's motive, his presence at the scene, and the recovery of his vehicle and a .30 bore pistol allegedly used in the commission of the offence. The Court held that the recovered evidence, including the vehicle and weapon, sufficiently linked the petitioner to the crime, establishing a prima facie case. Consequently, the Court dismissed the bail application, affirming that the offence fell within the prohibitory clauses of section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, as the petitioner was implicated by evidence collected during the investigation.
- Does the recovery of a weapon and vehicle during investigation constitute sufficient grounds to deny post-arrest bail in a murder case?
- Can an accused be denied bail if they were not named in the initial FIR but were implicated during the investigation?
- Does an offence punishable by death or life imprisonment fall within the prohibitory clauses of section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 460, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 497(2), Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 13-A, Arms Ordinance 1965
ORDER
MALIK HAQ NAWAZ, J.---The petitioner has been booked for the offences under sections 302/460, P.P.C. vide FIR No.23/2010 of Police Station Yasin.
2. None was charged for commission of murder of Mst. Naseem, who was step mother of the petitioner . During investigation of the case the petitioner was found involved. After completion of investigation the petitioner was sent to Judicial lockup to face trial.
3. The petitioner submitted post arrest bail application in the Court of learned Sessions Judge Ghizer , which was refused by the learned Sessions Judge vide judgment/order dated 29-09-2018, hence this petition.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the case is false and the petitioner has been involved in the instant case on the behest of some ill wishers. The learned counsel for the petitio ner vehemently contended that the evidence so far collected by the prosecution is not sufficient to connect the petitioner with the alleged offence.
Per learned counsel the circumstantial evidence in the shape of some recoveries is not admissible in evidence. The case of the petitioner is one of the further inquiry falling under section 497(2), Cr.P.C. The learned counsel relied on 2008 PCr .LJ 87.
5. Conversely the learned Dy. Advocate General submitted that there is abundant evidence available with the prosecution in the shape of circumstantia l evidence, which are so interlinked and devoid of any legal defect could be taken into account to tentatively asses as to whether there exists a prima facie case against the petitioner/accused or not. The learned Dy. Advocate General submitted that it has come on record that the petitioner was at daggers drawn with his mother in law since long and was boring a grudge in his mind to eliminate the deceased. The petitioner/accused committed murder of deceased in a pre-planned manner but could not succeed to delink himself for commission of murder of deceased, despite his mischievous planning and evil design, to conceal his identity . The learned Dy. Advocate General submitted that the petitioner is travelled in his own car from Hunza to Barkulti to commit murder in the late hours of night, which has been recovered by the police and entries of the said has been noted down at Sher Qillah check post at 2315 hours has on the night of occurrence. A .30 bore pistol has also been recovered from the possession of the petitioner and a separate FIR under section 13- A.0 has been registered against him. The petitioner is involved in an offence which carries the punishment of life/ death, and falls within the prohibitory clauses of section 497, Cr .P.C.
6. I have considered the arguments of both the parties and perused the entire police file to reach at a just conclusion. No doubt that the petitioner/accused is not charged in the FIR and his involvement surfaced during investigation. After arrest of the petitioner/accused police also recovered the car, which owned by the petitioner and he travelled in the said car from Hunza to Barkulti. One .30 Bore pistol has also been recovered from the petitioner , which was allegedly used for commissio n of the offence. The statements of PWs and the recovery of car and weapon of offence have been effecte d during investigation, which clearly link the petitioner/accused with commission of of fence.
7. There is a prima facie case against the petitioner/accused, hence I B bail is decided being meritless.
8. File be consigned to record after completion.