PARVEZ vs THE STATE
This matter concerns a post-arrest bail application filed by the accused, Pervez, who is facing trial for offences under sections 302, 201, 404, and 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, following the discovery of a headless corpse. The core legal question is whether the prosecution has established sufficient grounds to deny bail, given the nature of the evidence presented. The Court observed that the prosecution's case rests solely on the statements of two witnesses who claimed the accused had hired the deceased's vehicle. However, these witnesses failed to disclose this information to the Superintendent of Police or the District Magistrate when they initially identified the body shortly after its discovery. Furthermore, the alleged vehicle was never recovered from the accused. The Court held that the unexplained delay in reporting the incriminating facts by the witnesses and the lack of corroborative evidence rendered the prosecution's case weak at this stage. Consequently, the Court granted bail, ruling that the case necessitated further enquiry as contemplated under section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, as the evidence did not sufficiently connect the applicant to the crime.
- Does an unexplained delay by witnesses in reporting incriminating facts against an accused justify the grant of bail?
- When does a criminal case necessitate 'further enquiry' under section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Is the absence of recovery of incriminating property a relevant factor in determining bail in a murder case?
- Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 201, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 404, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 34, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 497(2), Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
' The applicant/accused Pervez son of Muhammad Hashim is facing trial before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Gambat in S.C. No,251 of 2000 under sections 302, 201, 404 and 34, P.P.C.
It arose out of F.I.R. No,76 of 2000 of Police Station Ranipur.
2. The brief facts of the prosecution case as disclosed in the F.I.R. Lodged by S.I.P. Bisharat Ali Mallah of Police Station Ranipur on 16-7-2000 are reproduced hereinbelow:-- "Complaint is that on 16-7-2000, I was present as Incharge Duty Officer at Police Station when at 0730 hours Dadan alias Dadoo son of Nihal Khaskheli, resident of Abdul Karim Chandio informed on telephone that a dead body of unknown person has been lying in the water. His neck has been severed. It is not available. He had been killed by unknown persons. On receipt of such information, I alongwith P.C./1970 Amanat Ali, P.C./87 Imam Ali and PC/10288 Mumtaz Hussain proceeded and reached the spot at 8-00 hours. We saw the corpse of one unknown person lying without neck. We searched for neck but the same was not traceable. There was Shalwar of dark white colour on the person of dead body. We referred the dead body of unknown deceased to Government Hospital through P.C. Imam Ali and returned to police station. We informed the Suburban Police Station on wireless about the details of the dead body. No person came forward to claim the dead body.
There was watch on the arm of the dead body. It was of Q&Q Co., with black colour strip. The F.I.R.
Is registered on behalf of the State. Some unknown persons have murdered the unknown deceased with sharp-cutting weapon due to enmity. They have concealed the neck and threw the dead body in the land of Sultan Ahmed Chandio. Case is registered."
3. The police after usual investigation, sent up the applicant/accused to stand trial.
4. The applicant/accused applied for bail before the trial Court but his bail plea was refused.
5. I have heard Mr. Ghulam Mustafa Sahito learned counsel for the applicant/accused and Mr. Sher Muhammad Shar learned Assistant Advocate-General for the State. The latter opposes.
6. I have perused the material placed on record as well as police record with the assistance of the learned counsel for the parties. The dead body of unknown person with severed head was found in the water. It was recovered by the complainant. No claimant of dead body came forward. After completing the codal formalities the same was handed over to the Edhi Authorities. They buried the dead body.
7. The police record further shows that on 18th July, 2000, Ghouse Bux brother of the deceased and Qaim Hussain a Suzuki driver came to know about the recovery of dead body of the unknown person by the police and handing over of the same to the Edhi Center for its burial. He contacted the Edhi Authorities, they referred him to police. On the same day he contacted the Superintendent of Police as well as District Magistrate. On the orders of later, the dead body was disinterned. The same was identified by the P.W. Ghous Bux to be of his brother. He took the same and buried it in his village. On 17-8-2000 P.Ws. Ghous Bux and Qaim Hussain appeared before the police and stated that the applicant/accused alongwith co-accused hired the Suzuki of the deceased and he went with them. Thereafter, he did not turn up. There is no evidence against the applicant/accused except the piece of evidence stated hereinabove. The P.Ws. Ghouse Bux and Qaim Hussain appeared before the S.P. And District Magistrate on 18-7-2000, but they did Not disclose this fact before them. No explanation whatsoever with regard to their belated disclosure of this fact, has been given by both of them. The alleged Suzuki was also not recovered from the possession of present applicant/accused.
8. Consequently, I am of the considered view that the case necessitates further enquiry as contemplated under section 497(2), Cr.P.C. And applicant/ accused is entitled to bail. He is granted bail in the sum of Rs,5,00,000 (five lacs only) and P.R. Bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court.
The observations if any made hereinabove are of tentative nature and the same may not be considered at the time of final adjudication of the case.