SHAUKAT HAYAT and anothers vs THE STATE
This matter arises from a post-arrest bail petition filed by Shaukat Hayat and another seeking release in case F.I.R. No. 99 of 2001 registered at Police Station Kacha Khu, District Khanewal, for offences under sections 302, 201, and 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question is whether the petitioners are entitled to post-arrest bail where the sole evidence against them is the last-seen circumstance, there is a twelve-day delay in lodging the F.I.R., no incriminating evidence was recovered, and the police found them innocent during investigation. The Lahore High Court held that the case calls for further inquiry into the guilt of the petitioners under subsection (2) of section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The court admitted the petitioners to post-arrest bail, laying down the principle that last-seen evidence coupled with police exoneration and a delayed F.I.R. constitutes reasonable grounds for further inquiry warranting the grant of bail.
- Whether last-seen evidence alone without corroboration is sufficient to deny post-arrest bail?
- Does a finding of innocence by the investigating officer constitute grounds for further inquiry under subsection (2) of section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Can a significant delay in reporting the crime to the police justify the grant of bail to the accused?
- Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 201, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 34, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 173, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 497(2), Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
' Shaukat Hayat son- of Muhammad Yar and Muhammad Jahangir son of Allah Bukhsh, petitioners, have sought their post-arrest bail in a case F.I.R. No,99 of 2001 registered on 20-4-2001 at Police Station Kacha Khu, District Khanewal, for offences under sections 302, 201, 34, P.P.C.
2. Briefly, the facts of the case are that Wakeel Ahmad brother of the first informant went alongwith the petitioners on 8-4-2001 and thereafter did not return. On 12-4-2001 a dead body was recovered from the canal, which was identified to be that of Wakeel Ahmad. It was stated in the F.I.R. That it was suspected that the petitioners had murdered Wakeel Ahmad, as prior to the occurrence hot words were exchanged between the petitioners and the deceased.
3. After the completion of investigation the petitioners were lodged in the Judicial Lock-up and the challan/report under section 173, Cr.P.C. Has been submitted against the petitioners, wherein they have been placed in Column No,2.
4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record. It has been noticed that only evidence collected against the petitioners is that of having been last seen with the deceased. There is delay of about 12 days in reporting the matter to the Police. No incriminating evidence was collected against the petitioners during investigation. The petitioners were also found to be innocent by the Investigating Officer and this fact was verified by the DSP, Incharge.
5. In these circumstances, the allegation against the petitioners needs further probe and inquiry within the purview of subsection (2) of section 497, Cr.P.C. I am, therefore, inclined to allow this petition and admit the petitioners to bail, subject to their tendering bail bonds in the sum of Rs, One Lac each, with one surety each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court.