RANO Versus THE STATE
This matter concerns a bail application filed by the applicants under Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, seeking post-arrest bail in a case registered under Sections 302 and 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The applicants were accused of murdering Mst. Zainab, based solely on the complainant's suspicion, as the incident was unwitnessed. The core legal question was whether the applicants were entitled to bail given the nature of the evidence and the circumstances of the death. The Court observed that the post-mortem report indicated death by hanging, and the prosecution conceded that the case was unwitnessed and based only on suspicion, with no specific role assigned to the applicants. Holding that the case required further inquiry, the Court granted bail. The key principle established is that where a criminal case is based on suspicion, lacks eyewitnesses, and the cause of death (suicide vs. homicide) remains ambiguous at the pre-trial stage, the case falls within the ambit of 'further inquiry' under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, entitling the accused to bail.
- Does a case based solely on suspicion without eyewitnesses warrant further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Is an accused entitled to bail when the cause of death, as indicated by a post-mortem report, remains ambiguous between suicide and homicide?
- Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 497(2), Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 34, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
1. By this application under section 497, Cr.P.C. applicants have prayed for grant of bail in Crime No-12 of 2002, Police Station Wahi Pandi Taluka Johi District Dadu, wherein they have been charged for commission of offence punishable under sections 302 and 34, P.P.C.
2. Precisely, case of the prosecution is that Mst. Zainab daughter of complainant Rachal had died on 29-11-2002. On coming to know about this fact, complainant suspected and thus nominated the three applicants in the F.I.R. for committing the murder of his daughter Mst. Zainab. The applicants were arrested on 16-12-2002 and since then they are in custody. After usual investigation challan has been submitted before the trial Court on 31-12-2002, where the applicants are, facing trial.
3. Mr. Abdul Rasool Abbasi learned counsel for the applicants contends that the death of Mst. Zainab was caused as she had committed. suicide by hanging, which facts is confirmed from her post-mortem report. Admittedly, the incident is an unwitnessed incident but due to `suspicion the three applicants, who are real brothers, have been falsely implicated in the crime. He further contends that in such circumstances at this stage case of applicants needs further inquiry therefore, they are entitled for the concession of bail.
4. Mr. Anwar Ansari learned State counsel did not dispute that the death of Mst. Zainab resulted due to hanging, which fact is confirmed from the post-mortem report and such incident was not witnessed by any body. He also conceded that the applicants have been nominated in the F.I.R. only on suspicion and no specific role has been assigned to anyone of them.
5. I have considered the arguments and perused the case record. Submissions made by learned counsel for the applicants, as also conceded by the learned State counsel, are duly supported from the case record. The applicants, who are real brothers have been nominated in the F.I.R. only on suspicion. On the basis of post-mortem report of deceased Mst. Zainab, it is yet to be seen whether it is a case of suicide committed by her or she was murdered by applicants or some one else. In such circumstances case of applicants needs further inquiry within the ambit of section 497(2), Cr.P.C. Accordingly the applicants are admitted to bail on their furnishing surety in the sum of Rs.2,00,000 each and P.R. bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court.
6. H.B.T./R-95/K Bail granted.