SAEED AHMAD Versus State
This matter concerns a post-arrest bail application filed by the petitioner, who was implicated in a murder case registered under sections 302, 201, 109, and 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The prosecution alleged that the petitioner was involved in the disappearance of the deceased's body, based solely on an extra-judicial confession made by a co-accused. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to bail given the nature of the evidence and the specific role attributed to him. The Court held that the offence under section 201 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 does not fall within the prohibitory clause. Furthermore, as the petitioner's involvement rested solely on the statement of a co-accused, and investigation qua the petitioner was complete with no evidence placing him at the scene of the crime, the Court determined the case was one of further inquiry. Consequently, the Court granted post-arrest bail, emphasizing that continued incarceration would serve no useful purpose.
- Does an offence under section 201 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 fall within the prohibitory clause for the purpose of bail?
- Is a case based solely on the statement of a co-accused sufficient to deny bail when the investigation is complete?
- Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 201, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 109, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 34, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
MUHAMMAD NAWAZ BHATTI, J.--- Petition has sought his post-arrest bail in case F.I.R. No.73 of 2006, dated 26-3-2005 registered under sections 302/201/109/34, P.P.C. at Police Station City Leiah.
2. Precisely the allegation against the petitioner as per prosecution story is that Muhammad Yasin remained missing for about ten days. The complainant inquired from the daughter of deceased namely Humaira, who made extra-judicial confession that she and her mother Mst. Shado Mai co-accused had murdered Ghulam Yasin after giving him intoxicated tablets which were brought by Mukhtair Hussain. She also stated that Saeed Ahmad petitioner caused the dead-body to disappear.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner is innocent and has falsely been implicated in the case; he is behind the bars, investigation is complete during which the petitioner was not found present at the spot at the time of occurrence and he is no more required by the local police for the purposes of investigation; that no injury has been attributed to the petitioner on the person of deceased. Lastly submits that there is no eye-witness available to the prosecution and case against the petitioner is that of further inquiry.
4. On the other hand learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State vehemently opposed the bail and submits that petitioner is nominated in the F.I.R. and specific role has been attributed to him.
5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and carefully perused the record. Allegation against the petitioner is of destroying the evidence of an offence of capital punishment however offence under section 201, P.P.C. does not fall within the ambit of prohibitory clause. Petitioner has been involved on the statement of co-accused and except it no other evidence is available against him which makes the case against the petitioner that of further inquiry. Petitioner is behind the bars, investigation in the case qua the petitioner is complete and petitioner is no more required by the police for the purposes of further investigation and no useful purpose would be served to put him behind the bars for an indefinite period. Further more the petitioner was not found present at the spot during the course of investigation.
6. For what has been discussed above the petitioner is allowed bail in the sum of Rs.1,00,000 (rupees one lac only) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of learned trial Court.
S.M.B./S-147/L Bail petition allowe