GHAZI SARFRAZ Versus State
The applicant Ghazi Sarfraz challenged the order of the Additional Sessions Judge, Karachi West, which rejected his bail application in Crime No. 270 of 2007 registered under section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the applicant was entitled to post-arrest bail when the case against him rested on an extra-judicial statement made to police while in custody and pointation of the crime scene already known to police, constituting a lack of direct or circumstantial evidence. The court held that in the absence of connecting evidence, the case called for further inquiry under section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, entitling the accused to bail. The key principle laid down is that extra-judicial disclosures made in police custody and pointing out places already known to law enforcement agencies do not constitute sufficient incriminating evidence to deny post-arrest bail under section 497(2), Code of Criminal Procedure 1898.
- Does a statement made to the police during interrogation by an accused in custody constitute sufficient evidence to deny post-arrest bail?
- Whether the pointation of a place of incident already known to the police amounts to incriminating evidence warranting the refusal of bail?
- When does a criminal case fall within the scope of further inquiry under section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 154, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 392, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 397, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
SYED MEHMOOD ALAM, J.--- The applicant Ghazi Sarfraz has impugned the order, dated 6-3-2008 passed by the learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Karachi West in Crime No.270 of 2007 under section 302, P.P.C. of Police Station Surjani Town whereby the bail application of the applicant was rejected.
2. Precisely, the facts of the prosecution case are that the complainant Muhammad Zulfiqar recorded his statement under section 154, Cr.P.C. at 1800 hours at Abbasi Shaheed Hospital, which, was converted into above F.I.R. contending therein that since 2-9-2007 his younger brother Muhammad Tahir was missing. On 6-9-2007, he came to know about the recovery of a dead body through Police Station Surjani town, as a result of which, he came at Abbasi Shaheed Hospital and identified the dead body of his above mentioned brother by his clothes and N.I.C. He lodged the F.I.R. against the unknown person regarding the murder of his brother.
3. The accused was arrested in Crime No.288 of 2007 under sections 392/397, P.P.C. and during interrogation, the accused/applicant admitted that he and co-accused Shakeel killed the deceased Muhammad Tahir. The accused/applicant said to have pointed the place of incidence. Thereafter, challan was submitted.
4. The Advocate for the applicant, inter alia, contended that the applicant is an innocent and has been falsely implicated in the above case as this is a case of no evidence. Neither anybody claimed that he had seen the applicant committing the murder nor any confession of the applicant was recorded. The accused/applicant said to have arrested in the above case on the basis of so-called statement before the police in judicial lock-up, which has no evidentiary value and regarding the pointation of place of incidence that was also not a new evidence as the same was already in the knowledge of the police, hence the case falls under sub-clause (2) of section 497, Cr.P.C.
5. The learned State Counsel conceded the above position.
6. Heard both the counsel and perused the record.
7. Admittedly, no evidence was available to connect the accused/ applicant in the above case, hence the case fell under section 497(2), Cr.P.C., and required further inquiry and the applicant was entitled to bail, therefore, bail was granted to him on furnishing surety in the sum of Rs.5,00,000 (Rupees five lac only) with P.R. bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court, vide my short order, dated 18-6-2008. These are the reasons of the above short order.
H.B.T./G-17/K ??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Bail granted.
Cited by 4 cases
- DILDAR and another vs THE STATE 2012 MLD 1939
- HABIBULLAH vs THE STATE 2011 MLD 1616
- Mst. SHAHIDA vs THE STATE 2010 P Cr. L J 992
- MUMTAZ alias KAKA vs THE STATE 2010 YLR 2146