MUHAMMAD YOUSAF Versus State
This matter arises from a post-arrest bail petition filed by Muhammad Yousaf in respect of case F.I.R. No. 36 registered at Police Station Kakrali, District Gujrat, under section 392 (later substituted by section 395) of the Pakistan Penal Code. The core legal question concerned whether the petitioner made out a case for further inquiry under subsection (2) of section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, given the delayed F.I.R., lack of initial nomination, reliance on a joint extra-judicial confession, exoneration of previously nominated culprits, absence of recovery of stolen articles, and police findings that the petitioner remained outside the house during the occurrence. The Lahore High Court allowed the petition, holding that the petitioner's case fell within the scope of further inquiry under section 497(2), Cr.P.C. The key principle laid down is that a joint extra-judicial confession is devoid of evidentiary value, and where material contradictions, delayed implication via supplementary statements, and absence of incriminating recoveries exist, the accused is entitled to post-arrest bail pending trial.
- Does a joint extra-judicial confession possess evidentiary value under criminal law?
- Whether the absence of recovery of stolen articles from an accused warrants post-arrest bail?
- Does a case call for further inquiry under section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 when the accused is implicated belatedly through a supplementary statement based on a joint extra-judicial confession?
- Section 392, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 395, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 173, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
ASIF SAEED KHAN KHOSA, J .----Through this petition Muhammad Yousaf petitioner has sought post-arrest bail in case F.I.R. No.36 registered at Police Station Kakrali, District Gujrat on 1-3-2005 in respect of an offence under section 392, P.P.C. During the investigation section 392, P.P.C. was deleted from the F.I.R. and the same was substituted by section 395, P.P.C.
2. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and going through the record it has been noticed that the F.I.R. in this case had been lodged with a delay of two days. Admittedly the petitioner had not been nominated in the F.I.R. in any capacity whatsoever. The petitioner's name had surfaced in this case for the first time through a supplementary statement made by the complainant on 4-3-2005, i.e., after six days of the alleged occurrence. A perusal of the said supplementary statement shows that the complainant had implicated the petitioner exclusively on the basis of an extra judicial confession allegedly made jointly by two co-accused of the petitioner before the complainant. A joint extra judicial confession is devoid of any evidentiary value. It has straightaway been noticed by me that in the F.I.R. the complainant had specifically nominated three culprits but in the above mentioned supplementary statement made by him he exonerated the said nominated culprits and instead introduced five others including the present petitioner as the culprits. It is admitted at all hands that no stolen article had been recovered from the petitioner's possession during the investigation of this case. Although a pistol had statedly been recovered from the petitioner's custody during the investigation yet prima facie there is nothing available on the record of investigation to connect the said pistol with the alleged offence. The investigation of this case has already been completed and the report under section 173, Cr.P.C. submitted by the police expressly records that the petitioner had never entered the house where the alleged occurrence had taken place and throughout the said occurrence he had kept on standing out in the street.
3. For what has been discussed above the case against the petitioner calls for further inquiry into his guilt within the purview of subsection (2) of the section 497, Cr.P.C. 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 one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court.
H.B.T./M-295/L Bail granted.