Muhammad Atif vs The State
The applicant sought post-arrest bail under Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 in a case involving the alleged murder of his wife by strangulation. The core legal question was whether the applicant was entitled to bail on the ground of further inquiry given the circumstantial nature of the evidence, delayed FIR, and inconclusive medical board findings. The Sindh High Court held that since no eyewitnesses connected the applicant to the crime, the FIR was lodged with a three-day delay after consultation, and the medical board failed to determine the cause of death, a case for further inquiry was made out. The court consequently admitted the applicant to post-arrest bail subject to surety, laying down the principle that unexplained delay in lodging the FIR, inconclusive medical evidence regarding the cause of death, and the absence of direct eyewitnesses warrant the grant of bail under the rule of further inquiry.
- Whether an accused is entitled to post-arrest bail when the cause of death cannot be determined by the medical board?
- Does a delay in lodging the FIR, coupled with consultation among elders, make a case for further inquiry under Section 497 Cr.P.C.?
- Can bail be granted in a murder case where there are no eyewitnesses to the alleged incident?
- Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
Irshad Ali Shah J. It is alleged that the applicant committed murder of his wife Mst.Aliya by strangulating her throat, for that he was booked accordingly .
2. The applicant on having been refused post arrest bail by learned VI Additional Sessions Judge, Hyderabad, has sought for the same from this court by way of making instant application under section 497 Cr .P.C.
3. It is contended by learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant being innocent has been involved in this case falsely by the complainant in order to satisfy his matrimonial dispute with him; the FIR of the incident has been lodged with delay of about three days and cause of death of the deceased could not be determined even by medical board therefore, the applicant is entitled to his release on bail on point of further inquiry. In support of his contention he relied upon case of Mst. Sarwari and 2 others vs The State (2012 YLR 728).
4. Learned A.P.G for the State and learne d counsel for the complainant have opposed to release of the applicant on bail by contending that he has committed death of an innocent lady .
5. I have considered the above arguments and perused the record.
7. Admittedly , none has seen the applicant committing the alleged incident. The FIR of the incident has been lodged with delay of about three days that too after with the consultation with the elders and cause of death of the deceased could not be determined even by the medical board. In these circumstances, a case for grant of bail to the applicant on point of further inquiry is made out.
8. In view of above, the applicant is admitted to bail subject to his furnishing surety in sum of Rs.200,000/- and PR bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of learned trial Court.
9. The instant bail application is disposed of accordingly .