MUHAMMAD SADIQ and anothers vs THE STATE
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against an order of the Lahore High Court, which had previously denied bail to the petitioners in a murder case. The core legal question was whether, given the significant delay in lodging the First Information Report (F.I.R.)—which occurred six months after the incident—and the nature of the evidence presented, there existed reasonable grounds to believe the petitioners committed the alleged offence. The Supreme Court examined the prosecution's reliance on an extra-judicial confession and the motive attributed to the petitioners. The Court held that, upon review, reasonable grounds did not exist to believe the petitioners had committed the offence punishable with death or imprisonment for life or ten years. Consequently, the Court converted the petition into an appeal, allowed it, and granted bail to the petitioners. The key principle laid down is that where the prosecution's case rests on weak or delayed evidence, and reasonable grounds for believing the accused committed the offence are absent, bail should be granted.
- Does a six-month delay in lodging an F.I.R. constitute a ground for granting bail when the prosecution's evidence is otherwise weak?
- Is an extra-judicial confession sufficient to deny bail when other evidence is lacking?
- What is the standard for granting bail in cases involving offences punishable with death or life imprisonment?
- Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
1. ' MUKHTAR AHMAD JUNEJO, J.---Petitioners Muhammad Sadiq and Akhtar Javed have sought leave to appeal against an order, dated 18-10-1994 passed by a learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court, Rawalpindi Bench, dismissing their prayer for bail, in a case which was outcome of F.I.R. No,33 of 1994 of Police Station Dhuman, District Chakwal.
2. ' Said F.I.R., relates to murder of Aurangzab on the night between 7th and 8th of October, 1993, which was registered on 19-4-1994 on an application moved by Walayat Ali brother of the deceased. In his F.I.R., he explained that on the night of incident at 11.00 p.m. Or 12.00 midnight he had seen incised wounds on person of Aurangzeb but thought the same to have been caused by some wild animal and thereafter, the dead body of the deceased was buried. It was added that a few days before the incident, the deceased was given threat by one Muhammad Salim, whom the deceased had stopped from visiting his house. Complainant's son Qasim Ali told this to the complainant after he came to the village from Lahore, a few days after the death of Aurangzeb. On the application of Walayat Ali, the dead body of Aurangzeb was exhumed and examined by a doctor who found three penetrating wounds over chest and abdominal cavity. The doctor found the body to be in advanced condition of decomposition. He found the injuries to have been caused by sharp-edged weapon and they were opined to be sufficient to cause death of the deceased. The police investigated the case and an interim challan is said to have been placed in Court.
3. ' Mr. Muhammad Munir Peracha, learned counsel for the petitioners, argued that the F.I.R., was lodged after a period of six months and that there is no evidence to connect the petitioners with the killing of Aurangzeb, except that an extra-judicial confession is said to have been made by petitioner Muhammad Sadiq before Fazal Hussain and Muhammad Jahangir on 13-5-1994. The police examined one Mst. Zubaida sister of the deceased on 30-4-1994 and she gave a different motive for the alleged offence.
4. ' The petition was contested by Syed Zia Hussain, Advocate, for the complainant, who argued that there was strong evidence of motive besides the extra-judicial confession made by petitioner Muhammad Sadiq.
5. ' Raja Abdul Ghafoor, learned counsel for the State, conceded that the F.I.R., was lodged very late but argued that explanation for that was that the complainant was misled by one Salim to the effect that injuries on the person of Aurangzeb were caused by some wild animal. It was next argued that petitioner Muhammad Sadiq was alleged to have caused disappearance of evidence by removing blood-stained shirt of the deceased and by washing blood from the place of incident.
6. ' The learned Single Judge in Chamber relied on the extra-judicial confession made by Muhammad Sadiq before Fazal Hussain and Muhammad Jahangir on 13-5-1994 and also accepted statement of Mst. Zubaida about motive to be correct and for said reasons declined bail.
7. After hearing the learned counsel, we are of the view that reasonable grounds do not appear to exist that the petitioners committed murder of Aurangzeb, an offence punishable with death or imprisonment for life or imprisonment for ten years. This petition is, therefore, converted into appeal and allowed.
8. The appellants are, consequently, granted bail in the sum of Rs,fifty A thousand each with one surety in the like amount to be furnished in the Trial Court.