RAMZAN Versus State
This matter concerns a post-arrest bail application filed by the accused, Ramzan, who was implicated in a double murder case registered under Section 302/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the applicant was entitled to the grant of bail given that he was not named in the initial First Information Report (F.I.R.), the prosecution relied on circumstantial evidence regarding phone calls, and the legal heirs of the deceased had filed affidavits stating they had no suspicion against the applicant. The Court held that the case against the applicant required further inquiry. It noted discrepancies between the time the deceased allegedly left their home and the timing of the phone calls relied upon by the prosecution, concluding that the P.C.O. records alone were insufficient without supporting evidence. Furthermore, the Court emphasized that the applicant had been in custody since September 2006, rendering the investigation complete with no risk of evidence tampering. Consequently, the Court admitted the applicant to bail, establishing the principle that where the prosecution's case rests on circumstantial evidence requiring further proof, and the investigation is complete, bail should be granted.
- Whether an accused not named in the F.I.R. is entitled to bail when the prosecution's case relies on circumstantial evidence requiring further inquiry?
- Does the existence of affidavits from the legal heirs of the deceased stating no suspicion against the accused constitute a valid ground for the grant of bail?
- Can P.C.O. phone records serve as conclusive proof of an accused's involvement in a crime in the absence of supporting evidence?
- Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 34, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
1. MUNIB AHMAD KHAN, J .---According to F.I.R. No.411/06 registered under section 302/34, P.P.C. complainant has stated that he and his relatives are living as a brothery and sometime they used to quarrel on miscellaneous issue. On 26-8-2006 there was a dispute between Ghulam Yaseen and Manzoor on which the cousin of Yaseen namely Javed reported the matter to the P.S. New Karachi on 28-8-2006 against Manzoor, Irshad and Amjad. At 2-00 p.m. on 28-8-2006 Ghulam Yaseen and his son. Shahbaz left their house for their work but they did not return back. Today i.e. 29-8-2006 when I was at home I received telephonic information from P.S. Sohrab Goth that dead bodies of Ghulam Yaseen and Shahbaz are lying in the bushes near Merith Co-operative Housing Society. The said complainant has named as accused (1) Manzoor, (2) Irshad, (3) Amjad, (4) Ghaffar, (5) Sattar and (6) Mst. Rasheedan on the ground that the murder took place due to disagreement over the new engagement in relations.
2. The learned counsel for the applicant has argued that the applicant has not been named in the F.I.R., while the person Manzoor Hussain named in the F.I.R. has been released under section 497 (ii) Cr.P.C. He submits that the police has inserted the name of the applicant 'along with other persons in the challan and that some other accused persons named in the F.I.R. have not been arrested although available in the area and have been shown as absconders. He further submits that the wife/mother of the deceased Ghulam Yaseen and of Shahbaz as well as the, complainant Muhammad Khursheed who is brother-in-law of the deceased Ghulam Yaseen and real uncle Shahbaz have filed their affidavits in the Court of learned District &Sessions Judge Karachi Malir stating therein that the police is not arresting the actual culprit named in the F.I.R, and have wrongly released Manzoor while they have no objection to the grant of bail to the applicant, as they have no suspicion upon the applicant. He has further submitted that the applicant has been involved mi presumptions only.
3. On the other hand the learned State Counsel has argued that the lead to involve the applicant was found through the clue collected from phone calls of the deceased Shahbaz and on checking from mobile company it was revealed that two phone calls at 3-55 p.m. and 4-08 p.m. on 28-8-2006 from the P.C.O. at the phone of deceased Shahbaz i.e. 0301-8788505. Learned State Counsel submits that the P.C.O. operator has recognized applicant who phoned to deceased Shahbaz at his number at the above timings and thereafter on further investigation some other persons have also been encircled .who were not named in the F.I.R.
4. After hearing the learned counsel it appears that according to the complainant of the F.I.R. deceased left the house at about 2-00 p.m. While according to statements of the wife and daughter of deceased Shahabaz left the house on the phone call at lunch time. The phone calls which have been relied upon by the prosecution have timings of 3-55 p.m. and 4-D8 pan. it means there is difference in respect to the veracity of the timings :and the timing from the P.C.O. cannot. be taken as a conclusive proof in absence of supporting evidence. It also appears that apparently there is no strong motive to commit two murders while according to complainant petty disputes was a routine in his brothery. It has also been observed that complainant himself along with the wife of deceased Ghulam Yaseen, who is also mother of Shahbaz have filed their affidavits towards their non-involvement. As per information of the learned State Counsel the accused is in jail from September, 2006 which shows that the initial investigation has been completed and applicant is in jail. Therefore, there should be no apprehension of tampering of evidence or non-co-operation in investigation.
5. In the circumstances apparently the case appears to be of further enquiry as link of the accused to the phone calls is to be established through supporting evidence and further it is to be seen that those calls can link up accused with the murder. In the circumstances the applicant is admitted to bail hi the sum of Rs.200,000 and P.R. bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court.
6. H.B.T./R-18/K Bail granted.