NOSHER ALI Versus State
This petition for post-arrest bail arises from a criminal case registered under sections 302/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, concerning the murder of a lady. The prosecution's case relied on a belated statement by a witness, Muhammad Zakir, who claimed to have witnessed the incident but only reported it to the police one month after the FIR was registered. The prosecution also cited a confession allegedly made by the petitioner while in police custody. The Court questioned the credibility of the witness's unexplained delay in reporting the crime and noted that a confession made during police custody lacks evidentiary value. Holding that the case against the petitioner required further inquiry and that the prosecution had yet to discharge the burden of proving the petitioner's involvement, the Court determined that the petitioner should not be incarcerated indefinitely pending trial. Consequently, the Court allowed the bail petition, granting the petitioner post-arrest bail subject to the furnishing of bail bonds.
- Does a confession made by an accused while in police custody have evidentiary value?
- Does a significant, unexplained delay by a witness in reporting an occurrence justify the grant of bail?
- When does a criminal case qualify for the principle of 'further inquiry' in bail proceedings?
- Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 34, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
IBAD-UR-REHMAN LODHI, J.--- Through this petition, Nosher Ali (Petitioner) seeks his post-arrest bail in case F.I.R.No.624 of 2012 dated
10-12-2012 under sections 302/34 P.P.C. registered at Police Station Noor Shah, Sahiwal.
2. As per the report of the prosecution, it was a blind murder and the complainant who was a passerby found a body of a lady and reported such occurrence to the police on 10-12-2012. After almost one month of the registration of the criminal case on the application of one Muhammad Zakir, to the effect that he witnessed the occurrence when the deceased was being murdered by the present petitioner Nosher Ali, the petitioner was implicated as an accused.
3. The learned Prosecutor further argued that the present petitioner during police investigation has confessed his guilt.
4. It is very strange as to why Muhammad Zakir who stated to have been a witness of the occurrence of murder remained mum and never disclosed such fact to the police for almost a complete month and what promoted him after one month to disclose this fact is still a mystery.
5. The alleged confession by the petitioner during police investigation while in custody has no evidentiary value and the same cannot be used against him. The present case is a classic example of cases of further inquiry. The prosecution is under heavy responsibility to discharge the onus of involvement of the present petitioner in the alleged crime. The petitioner cannot be kept behind the bars for an indefinite period awaiting the conclusion of such trial.
6. Hence, in these circumstances, this petition is allowed and the petitioner is admitted to bail subject to his furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs.200,000 (Two lac only) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of learned trial Court.
MWA/N-6/L Bail granted.
Cited by 2 cases
- MOHAMMED QASIM and another vs The STATE 2019 P Cr. L J 1218
- Asadullah and Sajjad Ali vs The State 2024 SHC 188