Alam Khan vs The State and others
The petitioner, Alam Khan, sought post-arrest bail in a case registered under section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 at Police Station Harnoli, District Mianwali, for the murder of Muhammad Faisal through firearm injuries. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to post-arrest bail in view of the incriminating material collected during the investigation. The Lahore High Court held that sufficient prima facie incriminating material was available on record, including eyewitness accounts placing the deceased with the petitioner, statements under section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 regarding an extra-judicial confession, and a positive forensic report matching the recovered weapon with empties from the crime scene. The court dismissed the bail petition, laying down the principle that tentative assessment of evidence at the bail stage suffices when a prima facie connection to an offence falling within the prohibitory clause of section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 is established, and deeper appreciation of evidence cannot be undertaken.
- Whether post-arrest bail can be granted when a positive forensic report matches the recovered weapon with empties from the crime scene?
- Does an extra-judicial confession recorded under section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 constitute prima facie incriminating material at the bail stage?
- Can a court undertake deeper appreciation of evidence while deciding a post-arrest bail petition for an offence falling within the prohibitory clause?
- Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 161, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
SAFDAR SALEEM SHAHID, J.---Alam Khan petitioner seeks post arrest bail in a case registered against him vide FIR No.232/2020 dated 10.09.2020 of fence under section 302, P .P.C. at police station Harnoli District Mianwali.
2. According to FIR on 09.09.2020 at about 11:00 P.M, unknown accused persons committed the murder of Muhammad Faisal deceased by causing firearm injuries.
3. Arguments heard. Record perused.
4. It has been noticed that although it was an unseen occurrence yet petitioner was nominated in the FIR by the complainant on the basis of statements made by Muhammad Bilal and Muhammad Gull Hasan who had seen Muhammad Faisal deceased along with petitioner on the same day of occurrence (09.09.2020) while going towards `Kandiwal'. On 11.09.2020 police recorded the statements of Muhammad Qasim and Muhammad Imran P.Ws under section 161 Cr.P.C. In their said statements both the aforesaid P.Ws took stance that on 09.09.2020 they were present in their fields near Kandiwal and on report of firing, they reache d at the spot and identified the petitioner who allegedly committed the murder of Muhammad Faisal deceased. Record also reveals that on 12.09.2020 police recorded the statements of Naseer Ahmad and Mohsin P.Ws under section 161 Cr.P.0 wherein they took stance that on 11.09.2020 they were present at the shop where petition er came and confessed his guilt with the claim that he had committed the murder of Muhamamd Faisal. During investigation, pistol 30-bore was recovered from the possession of the petitioner and same was sent to the office of Punjab Forensic Science Agency , Lahore for its analysis. According to the report of Forensic Science Agency , Lahore, the empties which were secured from the place of occurrence were found fired from said pistol allegedly recovered from the possession of the petitioner . The offences alleged against the petitioner come within the purview of prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C. The petitioner was found guilty during investigation conducted by the police. Prima facie sufficient incriminating material is available on record connecting the petitioner with the commission of instant occurrence. The grounds urged by learn ed counsel for the petitioner requires deeper appreciation of evidence which cannot be taken into consideration at bail stage. Reliance is placed on cases reported as "Sarfraz v. The State and 2 others " (2010 YLR 2678 Lahore), "Jaleel Ahmad and others v. The State " (1995 PCr.LJ 1583 Lahore), "Mushtaq v. The State" (1993 PCr.LJ 2389) and "Allah Ditta and others" v. The State (1983 PCr.LJ 2545, Lahore).
5. For what has been discussed above, instant petition having no force stands dismissed.