AQ1L SATTAR vs THE STATE
This is a criminal petition seeking post-arrest bail in a case registered under section 302 read with section 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for the alleged murder of the complainant's son. The core legal question involves the evaluation of circumstantial evidence, including last-seen evidence and an extra-judicial confession, alongside the fact that multiple investigating agencies declared the petitioner innocent. The Lahore High Court held that the case lacked direct evidence, the last-seen evidence was based on suspicion, the joint extra-judicial confession's admissibility was a matter for the trial court, and the allegation regarding the weapon was unsupported. Consequently, the court granted post-arrest bail to the petitioner subject to furnishing surety bonds. The key principle laid down is that where a murder case rests on weak circumstantial evidence and tentative assessment points towards further inquiry, the accused is entitled to the concession of post-arrest bail.
- Whether post-arrest bail can be granted when a case rests entirely on circumstantial evidence such as last-seen testimony and an extra-judicial confession?
- Does the declaration of innocence by multiple investigating agencies constitute a ground for the grant of bail?
- Whether the admissibility of a joint extra-judicial confession should be determined at the bail stage or by the trial court?
- Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 34, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
' Aqil Sattar son of Abdul Sattar seeks bail in case registered vide F.I.R. No,297 with Police Station Saddar, Sheikhupura on 29-5-2000 under section 302/34, P.P.C. For the murder of Hanif Bilal.
2. Allegations levelled in the F.I.R., authored by Muhammad Hanif is that his son Bilal Hanif works in a tailoring shop and after working hours he sleeps on the roof top. On the fateful day when Bilal Hanif did not come down he sent his other son to get him awakened, who told him that his son Bilal Hanif was missing from his bed. Hectic efforts were made to search him but he could not be found out and subsequently his dead body was found nearby. It is stated that he suspected that the petitioner alongwith Muhammad Saeed and Sajid alias Saja in furtherance of their common intention have killed his son.
3. Post-arrest bail was declined by the Additional Sessions Judge, Sheikhupura on 11-11-2000 .
4. Learned counsel contends that there is no direct evidence in the case and the circumstantial evidence collected so far is that of Manzoor and Mahmood who are witnesses of last seen alongwith Bashir Ahmad and Akbar Ali who have deposed that Aqil Sattar, and Muhammad Saeed came to them and made a confessional statement that Bilal Hanif was killed by them and that they should strive to get pardon from the complainant being related to him. Learned counsel taking his argument to its logical conclusion stated that last seen evidence is based on surmises and the evidence of extra-judicial confession could not be relied upon being inadmissible, further it was contended that Sajid made a confessional statement that he killed the deceased with unlicensed pistol which was given to him by the petitioner. It is submitted that there is no direct evidence to support this fact and as such he prayed for exercise of discretion in favour of the petitioner particularly when four Investigating Agencies have declared him innocent.
5. Learned counsel for the State has Opposed the grant of bail.
6. I have considered the arguments and have also gone through the record. It is true that the case is bereft of direct evidence; the circumstantial evidence collected so far is of last seen evidence which too is based on suspicion. With regard to extra-judicial confession the same is joint and its admissibility would be considered by the trial Court when the evidence is recorded. Handing over of a pistol to Aqil Sattar by Sajid is not supported by any evidence.
7. Keeping in view the circumstances in juxtaposition I am of the considered view that this is a fit case where concession of bail should be extended to the petitioner. Accepting his bail application I allow bail to the petitioner provided he furnishes security in the sum of Rs,50,000 with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Judge.