ABDUL SALAM IRFAN vs THE STATE
This matter concerns a post-arrest bail application filed by the applicant, Abdul Salam Irfan, who was implicated in a murder case registered at Mominabad Police Station. The core legal question was whether the applicant was entitled to bail given that he was not named in the initial F.I.R., which instead identified other suspects, and the prosecution's case relied solely on circumstantial evidence, specifically the 'last-seen' theory and the pointing out of the crime scene. The Sindh High Court observed that while the prosecution relied on two witnesses who claimed to have last seen the deceased in the applicant's custody, there was no identification indicated in the police file, and the applicant was not originally named. Following the precedent set in Abdul Saleem v. The State (1998 SCM R 1578), the Court held that the case required further enquiry. Consequently, the Court granted post-arrest bail to the applicant, establishing the principle that where the prosecution's case rests on circumstantial evidence like 'last-seen' testimony without corroborative identification, the matter warrants further enquiry, justifying the grant of bail.
- Whether the absence of an applicant's name in the F.I.R. constitutes grounds for further enquiry in a murder case?
- Does the reliance on 'last-seen' evidence alone, without identification, justify the grant of bail under Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- When does a criminal case qualify for 'further enquiry' sufficient to warrant the grant of bail?
- Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
1. ' F.I.R. In this case was lodged at Mominabad Police Station on 26-9-1998 by one Wali Muhammad Qureshi informing that he had seen the deceased at the hospital Who was killed by fire-arm injuries. Complainant named three persons, but not including present applicant, against whom he expressed suspicion on the basis that they had issued threats to him.
2. Learned counsel for applicant contends that the F.I.R. Does not mention the name of the applicant but mentions the names of other persons as suspected culprits and there is no eye-witness of the incident of murder. Learned trial Court has denied bail on the ground that there are two witnesses of the last-seen evidence and circumstantial evidence that place of incident was pointed by applicant.
3. ' Learned A.A.-G. Contends that two witnesses viz. Zulfiqar Haider and Naseer Ali had last-seen the deceased in the custody. He concedes that identification of that accused is not indicated from police file.
4. ' Learned counsel for applicant referred to the case of Abdul Saleem v. The State 1998 SCM R 1578, in which there was evidence of the deceased having been last-seen with the applicant in that case. It was held that the case would require further enquiry and bail was accordingly granted.
5. In the circumstances mentioned above, the present case also needs further enquiry. Applicant is accordingly admitted to bail subject to surety in the sum of Rs,1,00,000 (Rupees one lac only) and P.R. Bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court.
Cited by 5 cases
- QAMAR ABBAS SHAH vs THE STATE 2012 YLR 2663
- MUHAMMAD IQBAL vs STATE and another PLJ 2012 Cr.C. (Lahore) 6
- ALI BAAD KHAN and anothers vs THE STATE 2006 YLR 256
- NADEEM and another vs N/A 2003 YLR 833
- GULFAM vs THE STATE 2001 YLR 815