SABIR HUSSAIN Versus THE STATE
This matter concerns a petition for post-arrest bail in a murder case registered under Section 302/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The petitioner was not named in the initial First Information Report (F.I.R.), which described the incident as an attack by unknown assailants. During the investigation, two witnesses claimed to have seen the petitioner and another individual fleeing the scene, with one carrying a rifle. The petitioner sought bail, arguing the absence of eyewitnesses, lack of incriminating recovery, absence of motive, and that his involvement required further inquiry. The State opposed the bail, relying on the statements of the witnesses who saw the petitioner near the scene. The Court held that since the petitioner was not named in the F.I.R., no motive was established, no incriminating evidence was recovered, and the trial had not yet commenced after more than a year of incarceration, the petitioner's guilt warranted further inquiry. Consequently, the Court granted post-arrest bail, establishing that the absence of direct evidence and the delay in trial justify bail pending further investigation.
- Does the absence of the accused's name in the F.I.R. and lack of incriminating recovery constitute grounds for further inquiry in a murder case?
- Is an accused entitled to bail when the trial has not commenced after one year of incarceration?
- Can bail be granted in a murder case where the prosecution relies solely on witnesses who saw the accused fleeing the scene without direct evidence of the crime?
- Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 34, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
Petitioner seeks bail in a case registered vide F.I.R. No.20 of 2001 dated 31‑1‑2001 under sections 302/34, P.P.C., Police Station Dajal, District Rajanpur wherein it is alleged that the complainant's brother Lal Bakhsh used to live with his in -laws; that on the fateful night his father‑in- law came to the complainant and informed him that Lal Bakhsh went to have a round of his cotton field where he was fired upon by unknown assailants and he was seriously injured. None was named as accused. The said Lal Bakhsh ultimately succumbed to the injuries and died.
During investigation statements of two witnesses were recorded who had allegedly seen the petitioner and another person running away from the place near the spot and one of them was carrying a rifle. They were ultimately challaned in this case.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has sought bail on the grounds that there is no eye‑witnesses of the occurrence; that there is no incriminating recovery from the petitioner; that there is no motive either and that in any case the question of petitioner's involvement in the alleged offence requires further inquiry.
3. Learned State counsel has opposed the petition by submitting that two witnesses of Waj‑Takkar have nominated the petitioner to be one of those who were running away and there is no reason why they should falsely implicate the petitioner.
5. Petitioner is not named in the F.I.R. Admittedly, no motive was alleged by the Waj‑Takkar witnesses who allegedly saw the petitioner and another running away at the time of occurrence. Nothing was recovered from the petitioner to connect him with the alleged offence. He is behind the bars for more than a year and the trial has not commenced. In these circumstances the question of petitioner's guilt would require further inquiry. Resultantly, this petition is allowed and subject to petitioner's furnishing bail bonds in the sum of rupees one lac with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court, the petitioner shall be released on bail.
S.M.A./S‑483/L Bail allowed.