MUHAMMAD BAKHSH vs THE STATE
This matter arises from a bail application filed by the applicant Muhammad Bakhsh in connection with Crime No. 33 of 2001 registered under Section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for the alleged murder of Ghulam Shabir by poisoning. The core legal question concerns whether the applicant is entitled to post-arrest bail in an unwitnessed case involving circumstantial evidence, delayed F.I.R., a time gap in sending samples to the chemical laboratory, and an absence of attributed motive. The Sindh High Court held that the applicant had made out a case for further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, given the unexplained delay in lodging the F.I.R., the delay in dispatching samples to the chemical examiner, and the lack of an evident motive. Consequently, the court confirmed the bail previously granted to the applicant by its short order, reiterating principles regarding tentative assessment of evidence and further inquiry in circumstantial cases.
- Whether post-arrest bail should be granted when an FIR is registered with an unexplained delay of over two months in an unwitnessed murder case?
- Does a delay in sending exhumed body samples to the chemical laboratory create sufficient grounds for further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Is the absence of an attributed motive sufficient to make the case one of further inquiry for the purpose of granting bail?
- Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
1. ' This is a bail application in connection with Crime No,33 of 2001 for offence under section 302, P.P.C.
2. ' It seems that on 5-5-2000, Ghulam Shabir brother of the complainant alongwith his brother-in- law Muhammad Bux Khokhar went with family members to attend the marriage ceremony. On 6- 5-2000 at about 8-30 p.m. Muhammad son of Mithal and Muhammad Bux Khokher brought the dead body of Ghulam Shabir in Ambulance and informed the complainant that he had suddenly died between 7 to 8 p.m. That dead body was not burried and they noticed that green coloured water and blood was coming out from the mouth and the nose of the deceased and dead body had become blackish. The deceased was burried on 7-5-2000. After some days, the complainant came to know that his brother Ghulam Shabir had been murdered by Muhammad Bux Khokhar by poisoning. He submitted an application to the Deputy Commissioner and the S.H.O. Proceeded to examine the dead body in the presence of the Magistrate. A team of the doctors examined the deceased and conducted a post-mortem. The Chemical Examiner at Sukkur Rohri was asked to give the opinion as to the cause of the death and according to the F.I.R., the deceased had died due to poisoning.
3. ' The applicant was arrested after investigation and challaned. The application for bail was refused by the trial Court and hence this application has been moved for grant of bail. It was urged that the applicant had been falsely implicated. It was further urged that the F.I.R. Was registered after two months and twenty-three days and that there was no motive attributed to the applicant for killing Ghulam Shabir. As per the F.I.R. There is no eyewitness. Even if chemical report was to be believed anybody could have poison Ghulam Shabir. It is an unwitnessed crime. Even complainant has not seen the offence being committed. It is further urged that the samples taken from the exhumed body were despatched to the Chemical Laboratory on 14-6-2000 but were received by the Chemical Laboratory on 19-6-2000. According to the counsel for the applicant this creates a serious doubt about the authenticity of the certificate. Be that as it may even if it is accepted that the deceased was poisoned. The poisoning has to be proved. It has also to be proved that the applicant had a motive for poisoning the person nothing has been brought forward in the F.I.R. Or other papers. The counsel relied upon the following case laws:--
(1) Karim Haider and others v. The State 1986 SCM R 938, (2) Muhammada v. The State 1986 PCr.LJ 1103, (3) Muhammad Hussain v. Afzal Ahmed and another 1995 SCM R 932, (4) Jehangir and others v. The State 1996 PCr.LJ 283 and (5) Ghulam Mustafa alias Sathi and others v. The State 2000 PCr.LJ 2053.
4. ' Because of the above reasons by a short order bail was granted on 30th March, 2001 and the above are the reasons.
Cited by 2 cases
- MOOHAN LAL and 2 otherss vs THE STATE 2006 YLR 155
- Mst. RAHEEMA vs THE STATE 2003 YLR 1930