MUHAMMAD RAFIQUE Versus State
The petitioner sought post-arrest bail in a case registered under sections 302 and 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 at Police Station Sarai Alamgir, District Gujrat, stemming from an FIR lodged regarding an unidentified dead body found. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to post-arrest bail where he was not named in the initial FIR, was implicated only through a belated supplementary statement casting suspicion, and no weapon of offence was recovered from him. The Lahore High Court allowed the petition and admitted the petitioner to post-arrest bail, holding that the supplementary statement casting suspicion lacked evidentiary value at this stage, no direct incriminating evidence or recovery was tied to the petitioner, and his continued incarceration was unnecessary as he was no longer required for investigation. The key principle laid down is that implication based solely on a delayed supplementary statement of suspicion, absent direct incriminating evidence or recoveries, warrants the grant of post-arrest bail.
- Whether post-arrest bail can be granted when the accused is not named in the initial FIR and is implicated only through a belated supplementary statement?
- Does a supplementary statement casting mere suspicion carry sufficient evidentiary value to deny bail to an accused?
- Is an accused entitled to bail when no weapon of offence is recovered from his possession and he is no longer required for investigation?
- Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 34, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
TARIQ SHAMIM, J .----The petitioner seeks post-arrest bail in case F.I.R. No.214 dated 14-5-2007 for offence under section 302/34, P.P.C. registered at Police Station Sarai Alamgir, District Gujrat.
2. The brief facts of the case are that an unidentified dead body was discovered, whereupon the aforementioned F.I.R. was lodged against some unknown persons.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the occurrence is unseen; that the petitioner is neither named in the F.I.R. nor any role has been ascribed to him; that in the supplementary statement recorded by the brother of the deceased on 17-5-2007 i.e. three days of the occurrence, suspicion was cast against the petitioner; that during investigation, no weapon was recovered from his possession and that there is no direct incriminating evidence available on the record regarding involvement of the petitioner in the offence.
4. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Deputy Prosecutor-General for the State and have gone though the record.
5. The learned Deputy Prosecutor-General has candidly conceded that apart from the supplementary statement recorded by the brother of the deceased, in which he has cast suspicion against the petitioner of being involved in the crime, there is no other direct incriminating evidence available against him. Further, the petitioner was involved on the basis of a supplementary statement which does not carry any evidentiary value. During investigation, weapon of offence was not recovered from the petitioner who is behind the bars for a considerable time and at this stage he is not required by the police for any further investigation.
6. For what has been stated above, this petition is allowed and the petitioner is admitted to post-arrest bail subject to his furnishing bail bond in the sum of Rs.1,00,000 with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court.
H.B.T/M-320/L Bail granted.
Cited by 2 cases
- Waris Ali vs The State, etc. 2015 LHC 6650
- WARIS ALI vs The STATE and another 2017 MLD 1891