MUHAMMAD RIAZ Versus THE STATE
This matter concerns a post-arrest bail application filed by the petitioners, Muhammad Riaz and Muhammad Ramzan, who were accused in an F.I.R. registered under Sections 302, 324, and 364 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 regarding the alleged murder and abduction of the complainant's sister. The core legal question was whether the petitioners were entitled to bail given the emergence of affidavits from key prosecution witnesses. The court observed that the complainant, the brother of the deceased, filed an affidavit stating he had not nominated the accused and that his thumb impression was obtained on a blank paper by the police. Furthermore, witnesses to the alleged extra-judicial confession filed affidavits denying that any confession was made in their presence. The court held that, in the absence of direct evidence and given the retraction of key prosecution testimony, the case against the petitioners warranted further inquiry. Consequently, the court confirmed the bail, establishing the principle that where the credibility of the prosecution's primary evidence is significantly undermined by affidavits from the complainant and key witnesses, the accused is entitled to the concession of bail.
- Does the filing of affidavits by the complainant and key witnesses retracting their statements constitute grounds for further inquiry in a bail application?
- Is an accused entitled to bail when the prosecution lacks direct evidence and the primary witnesses have disowned their initial statements?
- Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 324, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 364, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
The petitioners seek bail after arrest in case F.I.R. No.234 of 2002 registered on 22-9-2002 in Police Station Qadirpur, District Jhang under sections 302134/364, P.P.C.
2. The F.I.R. was lodged by one Lai Khan regarding the abduction of his sister Mst. Sardaran. In the F.I.R. it was stated by the complainant .that he had strong suspicion that on account of some grievance Muhammad Ramzan and Muhammad Riaz had committed the murder of his sister.
3. Muhammad Ramzan petitioner is stated to be the son of the deceased while Muhammad Raiz accused is stated to be the younger brother of the husband of the deceased and who had allegedly taken along the deceased.
4. In the F . R. a mention was also made of the motive for the occurrence.
5. Arguments have been heard and record perused
6. It appears that on 20-11-2002, during the hearing of the bail application, Lai Khan complainant had filed an affidavit before the learned Additional Sessions Judge to the effect that he had not nominated the accused in the F.I.R. and that his thumb-impression had been obtained by the police on a blank paper. He had also deposed in the affidavit that he was satisfied that the accused had not committed the offence. Lal Khan aforesaid who is the complainant in this case is the' real brother of the deceased. On the same day Ghulam Shabbir and Ali Muhammad who are the witnesses of extra-judicial confession also filed affidavit before the learned Additional Sessions Judge to the effect that none of the accused had made any confession in their presence. It seems that Mukhtar Ahmad and Sher Muhammad were the witnesses of last seen who have not yet filed affidavits in favour of the petitioners. Any A how the furnishing of affidavits by the complainant and two witnesses of extra-judicial confession clearly make it a case of further inquiry. Admittedly there is no direct evidence in this case available with the prosecution concerning the murder of the deceased by the accused/petitioners. Under these circumstances, the petitioners are entitled to the concession of bail. Therefore, the bail application is accepted and the interim bail earlier granted to the petitioners on 3-12-2002 is confirmed, subject to their furnishing fresh bail bonds in the sum of Rs.50,000 each, with one surety each it, the like amount, to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court, within seven days.
H.B.T./M-375/K Bail confirmed.