ZAHID ANWAR Versus THE STATE
This matter arises from a post-arrest bail petition filed by Zahid Anwar, an accused in case F.I.R. No. 13 registered under sections 302 and 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code at Police Station Badomali, District Narowal, concerning the murder of Ejaz Ahmad. The core legal question is whether the petitioner is entitled to post-arrest bail where the case is based on an unwitnessed occurrence, un-named F.I.R., circumstantial evidence, and where investigation is complete and challan submitted. The Lahore High Court held that the case calls for further inquiry into the guilt of the petitioner under subsection (2) of section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, granting bail to the petitioner. The court laid down the key principles that bail ought not to be withheld by way of premature punishment, and that one accused person cannot be held as a hostage for the arrest of an absconding co-accused.
- Is an accused entitled to post-arrest bail in an unwitnessed murder case where the F.I.R. does not name him and the prosecution relies solely on circumstantial evidence such as last seen and extra-judicial confession?
- Whether bail can be withheld from an accused merely to compel the arrest of an absconding co-accused?
- Does continued incarceration of an accused serve any useful purpose after the submission of the challan when the case falls within the purview of further inquiry?
- Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 34, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
Zahid Anwar petitioner is an accused person in case F.1.R. No,13 registered at Police Station Badomali, District Narowal on 27-1-1999 for an offence under section 302/34, P.P.C. The allegation against the petitioner and his co-accused namely Muhammad Abbas is that during the night between 26/27-1-1999 they had committed the murder of Ejaz Ahmad alias Bachoo. The petitioner was arrested by the local police in connection with this case on 1-4-1999. Subsequently, his application for post-arrest bail was dismissed by the learned Sessions Judge, Narowal vide order, dated 24-7-1999. Hence, the present petition before this Court.
2.After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner and going through the record produced by the police it has been noticed that it was admittedly a case of an unwitnessed occurrence. The petitioner had not been named in the F.I.R., as one of the perpetrators of the offence in question. So far the prosecution is possessed of only circumstantial evidence against the petitioner in the nature of last seen evidence and the evidence regarding extra-judicial confession. The worth and evidentiary value of the said pieces of evidence shall be gone into by learned Trial Court at the time of trial after recording of evidence. The "Kasad" allegedly recovered from the petitioner during the investigation was admittedly not stained with blood. The challan in this case has already been submitted after completion of investigation. The petitioner has already spent more than nine months in jail in connection with this case. His continued custody in jail is not likely to serve any useful purpose at this stage. It is settled law that concession of bail ought not to be withheld by: way of premature punishment.
3.It has been pointed out by the Police Officer present with record that Muhammad Abbas co- accused is still an absconder and according to the Police Officer admission of the present petitioner to bail shall make it more difficult for the police to arrest the said co-accused. I have, however, remained unable to subscribe to the view expressed by the police officer as it is settled law that one accused person cannot be held as a hostage for the arrest of another.
4.For what has been discussed above the case against the petitioner calls for further inquiry into his guilt within the purview of subsection (2) of section 497, Cr.P.C. This petition is, therefore, allowed and the petitioner is admitted to bail in the sum of Rs,50,000 (Rupees fifty thousand only) with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned Trial Court.