Pakistan Case LawFahad Versus The State and another
This matter arises from a petition impugning an order that declined post-arrest bail to the petitioner in a criminal case registered under sections 302, 311, 201, 202, and 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code. The core legal question is whether the petitioner is entitled to post-arrest bail when statements under section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure do not implicate him and the case otherwise falls within the scope of further inquiry. The Supreme Court converted the petition into an appeal and allowed it, granting bail to the petitioner. The court held that where statements under section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure fail to mention the petitioner and no substantial circumstantial evidence connects him to the crime apart from a prior application by the deceased, the case falls within the ambit of further inquiry under subsection (2) of section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, warranting the grant of post-arrest bail.
- Does a case fall for further inquiry under section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 when statements under section 164 do not implicate the accused?
- Whether post-arrest bail should be granted when the only evidence against the accused is a prior application filed by the deceased and no confessional statement names him?
ORDER
SARDAR TARIQ M ASOOD, J. Through this petition, the petitioner impugns the order dated 17.04.2023, by which the post arrest bail was declined to him in case FIR No.11 dated 20.01.2023, registered at Police Station Battagram, District Battagram under sections 302/311/201/202/34, P.P.C.
2.After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner, we observe that the daughter of the complainant, namely, Mst. Riffat Bibi was found missing after 07.01.2023, the matter was reported to the police and it is stated by the complainant that she was done to death by her husband's brother, Janas and his son (petitioner). On query, learned Additional Advocate General, KP and the learned counsel for the complainant state that there is statement of one Abdul Haleem under section 164, Cr.P.C. and there is another important circumstantial evidence in the shape of confessional statement under section 164, Cr.P.C. of Janu alias Janas, in which he had admitted his guilt of committing her murder and also got recovered the dead body of deceased after making disclosure. However, we observe that in both statements under section 164, Cr.P.C., the name of the petitioner is not mentioned in any context. There is no other circumstantial evidence available on the record against the petitioner except an application, which was filed by the deceased a few days earlier prior to the occurrence. In that eventuality, the case of the petitioner calls for further enquiry falling under subsection (2) of section 497, Cr.P.C.
3.Resultantly, this petition is converted into an appeal and allowed. The petitioner is enlarged on bail subject to furnishing his bail bonds in the sum of Rs.200,000/- with two sureties in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court.
Judges on this bench
- Sardar Tariq Masood645 judgments
- Amin-Ud-Din Khan1,272 judgments
- Syed Hasan Azhar Rizvi422 judgments