NAZIR AHMAD Versus State
This is a criminal petition seeking post-arrest bail for the petitioner who was implicated in a murder case registered under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the petitioner made out a case for further inquiry under section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, given that there was no eye-witness account, no recovery was made from him, and he was declared innocent during police investigation. The Lahore High Court accepted the petition and held that the petitioner was entitled to post-arrest bail. The court established the key principles that an extra-judicial confession is a weak type of evidence requiring independent corroboration, and that the absence of eye-witnesses, lack of recovery, and exoneration during police investigation bring the case within the scope of further inquiry.
- Whether an extra-judicial confession alone is sufficient to deny post-arrest bail without independent corroboration?
- Does the declaration of innocence during police investigation make a case one of further inquiry under criminal law?
- Is an accused entitled to bail when there is no eye-witness account and no recovery of a crime weapon from him?
- Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 34, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
KHURSHID ANWAR BHINDER, J .--- The petitioner seeks post-arrest bail in case F.I.R. No.257 of 2008 dated 19-9-2008 registered under section 302/34, P.P.C. at Police Station Ghanda Singh Wala District Kasur.
2. Precise allegations against the petitioner as per narration of F.I.R. are that he along with his accomplices had committed the murder of husband of the complainant.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there is no eye-witness account of the occurrence and the case registered against the petitioner is merely on suspicion. He further submits that there is no direct or indirect evidence available on record against the petitioner as the complainant herself has also not seen the occurrence. He further argues that the petitioner has been declared innocent in police investigation and no recovery has been effected from him at all. The petitioner is previously non-record holder, therefore, is liable to be released on bail.
4. Learned D.P.-G. opposes bail application of the petitioner and submits that the petitioner is nominated in the F.I.R. with specific role. He has also referred to extra-judicial confession made by the petitioner before Mukhtar and Manzoor, in which he had confessed committing murder of the husband of the complainant. He, however, submits that the petitioner has been declared innocent in police investigation and recovery has been effected from the co-accused and not from the petitioner.
5. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned D.P.-G. and have also perused the record. The petitioner is no doubt nominated in the F.I.R., but I am afraid this Court has to see as to whether offences under which the petitioner is liable to be tried are attracted in this case or not. There is no eye-witness account of the occurrence. Even otherwise, it is practically not possible that murder of the complainant's husband was committed in the house and none of the family members would know that murder has been committed as no hue and cry was ever made by the deceased. This aspect of the case speaks volumes of the false implication of the petitioner as he has already been declared innocent in police investigation and no recovery of any crime weapon has been effected from him as well.
6. As far as argument of the learned D.P.-G. regarding extra-judicial confession by the petitioner is concerned, I am afraid evidence based on extra-judicial confession is a very weak type of evidence and it cannot be believed until and unless it is corroborated by other independent source.
7. Under the circumstances, petitioner's case is that of further inquiry into his guilt. I, therefore, admit the petitioner to post-arrest bail subject to his furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs.50,000 (Rupees fifty thousand), with two sureties in the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned trial Court/Illaqa Magistrate.
Petition stands disposed of.
N.H.Q./N-18/L Bail allowed.
Cited by 3 cases
- MUHAMAMD TARIQ vs The STATE and others 2013 MLD 598
- SABIR BAIG vs THE STATE 2012 YLR 1412
- DAIMUDDIN and 2 others vs THE STATE 2010 MLD 1089