SAIF ULLAH Versus State
This matter comes before the Lahore High Court through a criminal petition filed by Saif Ullah seeking post-arrest bail in respect of case F.I.R. No.124 registered on 7-5-2004 under section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 at Police Station Sadar Wazirabad, District Gujranwala. The core legal question concerns whether the circumstantial and supplementary evidence relied upon by the prosecution—namely last-seen evidence, recovery of a blood-stained knife, and an extra-judicial confession—creates a sufficient prima facie case to warrant the continued incarceration of the accused when the initial F.I.R. was unnumbered and unwitnessed, and medical evidence indicates fire-arm injuries rather than knife wounds. The court held that the discrepancies between the medical evidence, recovery, and extra-judicial confession bring the case within the scope of further inquiry under section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. Consequently, the petition was allowed and bail was granted to the petitioner subject to surety bonds. The key principle laid down is that material contradictions between ocular, medical, and supplementary circumstantial evidence necessitate further probe, making the continued detention of an accused unjustified for preventive or punitive purposes.
- Whether post-arrest bail should be granted when the initial F.I.R. is unwitnessed and major discrepancies exist between the medical evidence and the alleged weapon recovery?
- Does an extra-judicial confession delayed by two months and contradicted by medical reports warrant further inquiry into the guilt of the accused?
- Can the recovery of a weapon inconsistent with the injury statement weaken the prosecution's case sufficiently to justify bail under the purview of further inquiry?
- Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
Through this petition Saif Ullah petitioner has sought post-arrest bail in case F.I.R. No.124 registered at Police Station Sadar Wazirabad, District Gujranwala on 7-5-2004 for an offence under section 302, P.P.C.
2. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and going through the record it has straightaway been observed by me that according to the F.I.R. the date, time and place of the alleged murder was not known, the alleged occurrence had remained unwitnessed and neither the deceased had been identified nor the culprits known at the time of registration of the F.I.R. On 8-5-2004 a brother of Muhammad Ilyas deceased namely Ghulam Abbas had submitted an application before the local police maintaining therein that the petitioner and others had been seen last in the company of Muhammad Ilyas deceased whereafter his dead body was discovered by the police. So far the prosecution is relying on the last-seen evidence, recovery of a blood-stained knife from the petitioner's possession and an extra-judicial confession allegedly made by the petitioner before Haji Muhammad Aslam and Talat P.Ws. so as to prosecute the petitioner for the alleged murder. The above mentioned application submitted by Ghulam Abbas before the local police on 8-5-2004 shows that the said Ghulam Abbas had not himself seen the deceased in the company of the petitioner. As regards the alleged recovery of a blood-stained knife from the petitioner's possession during the investigation of this case it has been noticed by me that according to the F.I.R., the statement made by Ghulam Abbas, the post-mortem examination report and the injury statement prepared by the Investigating Officer the deceased had apparently sustained only fire-arm injuries and, thus, recovery of a blood-stained knife from the petitioner's possession may not fit into the original case of the prosecution. As far as the extra-judicial confession allegedly made by the petitioner before the above mentioned witnesses is concerned it may be observed for the limited purposes of the present petition that the above mentioned witnesses had made their statements before the Investigating Officer regarding the alleged extra-judicial confession by the petitioner after above two months of registration of the F.I.R. It is also noticeable that according to the extra-judicial confession allegedly made by the petitioner the weapon of offence was a chhurri whereas, as already observed above, different pieces of evidence available on the record tend to show that the deceased had received only fire-arm injuries. Apart from that the extra-judicial confession shows that the deceased had been made to take some intoxicant before he was done to death but prima facie the medical evidence does not show presence of any intoxicant inside the dead body of the deceased. In these circumstances, especially when the alleged murder had admittedly remained unwitnessed, the worth and evidentiary value of the above mentioned pieces of evidence being relied upon by the prosecution calls for further probe at this stage. The challan in this case has already been submitted after completion of investigation and, thus, continued custody of the petitioner in jail is not likely to serve any beneficial purpose at this juncture.
3. For what has been discussed above the case against the petitioner calls for further inquiry into his guilt. This petition is, therefore, allowed and the petitioner is admitted to bail subject to furnishing bail bond in the sum of Rs.50,000 (Rupees fifty thousand only) with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court.
4. Before parting with this order it may be clarified that the observations made in the present order shall always be treated as tentative in nature and the same shall not prejudice the learned trial Court in any manner.
H.B.T./S-325/L Bail granted.