MUHAMMAD RIAZ Versus THE STATE
This matter concerns a petition for post-arrest bail filed by the accused, Muhammad Riaz, who was charged under Section 302/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 in connection with a murder case. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to bail given that he was declared innocent by the local police during the investigation and the prosecution lacked sufficient incriminating material against him. The Court observed that the petitioner's name was introduced via a supplementary statement recorded 24 days after the incident, and the specific role attributed to him—carrying a pistol—was inconsistent with the medical evidence, as no firearm injuries were found on the deceased. Finding no sound material to contradict the Investigating Officer's report of innocence and noting that the petitioner was no longer required for investigation, the Court held that the case warranted further inquiry. Consequently, the Court granted post-arrest bail, establishing the principle that where the prosecution lacks substantial evidence beyond a delayed supplementary statement and the police investigation supports the accused's innocence, bail should be granted.
- Is an accused entitled to bail when the local police investigation report declares them innocent?
- Does a significant delay in recording a supplementary statement naming an accused constitute grounds for further inquiry in a bail application?
- Can bail be granted when the specific role attributed to an accused is inconsistent with the medical evidence on record?
- Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 34, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
As a result of the case bearing F.I.R. No.433 registered with Police Station Pakpattan Sharif, on 15‑8‑2001, under section 302/34. P.P.C., Muhammad Riaz petitioner stands involved in the allegation that while armed with pistol he was out of two unknown persons who took part in the incident alongwith co‑accused Ijaz Ahmad as a consequence of which at about 12‑10 a.m. (mid night) Muhammad Shahban was injured with Chhuri blows who died at the spot, while the accused persons fled away. So at the instance of Liaqat Ali son of the deceased the above said case was registered and that name of the petitioner appeared on scene when the supplementary statement of the complainant on 9‑9‑2001 was recorded.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner mainly argued that the petitioner was found innocent during the investigation of this case and that the discharge report was drafted and presented before the Illaqa Magistrate but he did not agree with the same that the name of the petitioner came on the record through the supplementary statement which was recorded after 24 days and that even in the supplementary statement it was shown that the petitioner was present at the spot while armed with a pistol, but in accordance with the contents of the F.I.R. the accused armed with pistol had not caused any injury to the deceased and that the role of hardly raising lalkara was attributed to the petitioner. Further submits that no fire‑arm injury was found on the body of the deceased, therefore. it is a case of further inquiry. During arguments after perusing the record, learned State counsel confirmed this fact that the petitioner was found innocent by the local police.
3. The perusal of the record reveals that on finding the petitioner as innocent the discharge report was drafted. The learned State Counsel on Court's query, as to what is the evidence against the petitioner, replied again and again that there is nothing on record except the supplementary statement which nominated the petitioner as to be accused armed with a pistol, therefore, if this is the position then it means that he did not cause any injury to the deceased. At this stage there is no sound material to oppose the opinion of the Investigating Officer, the petitioner is in the Jail and no more required by the police for any further investigation therefore, it is a fit case for bail.
4. As a consequence of it, Muhammad Riaz petitioner is admitted to bail provided he furnishes surety bonds in the sum of Rs.2,00,000 (Rupees two lacs) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Sessions Judge Pakpattan Sharif.
While accepting the bail bonds the learned Sessions Judge shall give the specific date for appearance of the petitioner in the Court concerned and thereafter petitioner shall continue to appear there on each and every date of hearing till the receipt of the challan and also thereafter till disposal of the case.
Petition is hereby accepted.
H.B.T./M‑1211/L Bail granted.