SHAUKAT ALI vs THE STATE
This matter concerns a petition for post-arrest bail filed by the accused, Shaukat Ali, in a murder case registered under Section 302/109/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the petitioner, who was not named in the initial First Information Report and was implicated by prosecution witnesses only after a delay of approximately one and a half years, was entitled to the grant of bail. The Court held that the delayed implication of the petitioner by witnesses, without a satisfactory explanation for the silence during the intervening investigation period, cast serious doubt on the prosecution's case. Consequently, the Court found that the prosecution evidence was insufficient to establish a prima facie case of guilt for an offense punishable by death or life imprisonment. The Court laid down the principle that unexplained, significant delays in implicating an accused by witnesses during the investigation stage undermine the reliability of such evidence for the purpose of denying bail, particularly when the trial has not commenced and the accused has been incarcerated for an extended period.
- Does a significant delay in implicating an accused by prosecution witnesses create sufficient doubt to warrant the grant of post-arrest bail?
- Can an accused be denied bail when the prosecution evidence is not of a nature to justify continued incarceration pending trial?
- Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 109, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 34, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
' Petitioner Shaukat Ali seeks his post-arrest bail in a case registered against the accused under section 302/109/34, P.P.C., at Police Station Saddar, Vehari vide F.I.R. No,82 of 1996, dated 6-4-1996.
The allegations are that Muhammad Ramzan brother of the complainant was murdered by Tajo son of Bashir Ahmad, Anwar son of Ahmad, Zafar son of Mamand with the abetment of Riaz son of Bashir and Nazar son of Baqar. It is also alleged in the F.I.R. That Anwar accused had a suspicion that his sister Mst. Hafeezan Bibi wife of Naseer Din had illicit liaison with the deceased and on account of this grudge the accused persons in furtherance of their common intention murdered Muhammad Ramzan.
2. The case was registered against the accused on 6-4-1996 and during investigation it revealed that Mst. Hafeezan Bibi and petitioner Shaukat Ali in fact committed the murder of deceased. The accused mentioned in the F.I.R. Were discharged by the Ilaqa Magistrate on 29-5-1997.
3. Learned counsel submits that petitioner is not named in the F.I.R. He was arrested by the police on 24-10-1997, after one year, five months and 13 days of the occurrence on the basis of deposition made by some persons who were inimical towards him. There is no sound evidence against the petitioner regarding commission of alleged offence.
4. Learned State Counsel has opposed the bail application.
5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record. The prosecution witnesses' deposition made after about one and half years of the occurrence implicating the petitioner with the commission of crime suffers from serious doubts. If it was in the knowledge of the prosecution witnesses that petitioner had committed the murder of deceased and police had been investigating the case throughout from 6-4-1996 till 19-9-1997, why they did not come forward earlier to make the deposition about the involvement of the petitioner with the commission of murder of the deceased. The statements of the witnesses implicating the petitioner after such a long time cannot be given sufficient weight which may lead to the prima facie conclusion that the petitioner is guilty of an offence punishable with death or imprisonment for life. Petitioner is in jail since 24-10-1997 and trial has not commenced so far. The petitioner cannot be kept in jail for an indefinite period without conclusion of trial. The prosecution evidence is not of such a nature which may justify keeping of the petitioner in jail till conclusion of the trial.
' For the above reason, the petitioner is admitted to bail in the sum of Rs,2,00,000 (Rupees two lacs) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of trial Court. ##TE#The observations made in this order are tentative in nature and shall not affect the trial of the case in any manner.
' The petition accordingly succeeds and is allowed.