TALIB HUSSAIN vs THE STATE
The petitioner sought post-arrest bail in a murder case registered under sections 302 and 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, arising from an unseen occurrence where the dead body of the victim was discovered. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to bail where the allegations against him involved an extra-judicial confession while his co-accused were attributed firearms matching crime empties. The court held that the petitioner, being allegedly empty-handed and distinguishable from his co-accused whose weapons matched the forensic evidence, presented a case of further inquiry at the bail stage. The court laid down the principle that if there is any doubt even at the bail stage, its benefit must be extended to the accused person, and accordingly admitted the petitioner to post-arrest bail considering the lack of corroborative evidence at this stage and the delay in the commencement of the trial.
- Whether an accused person alleged to be empty-handed in a murder case is entitled to post-arrest bail when co-accused are linked with forensic evidence?
- Does an extra-judicial confession without immediate corroboration warrant denying bail to an accused?
- Whether the benefit of doubt can be extended to an accused person at the bail stage?
- Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 34, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
1. The petitioner stands involved in case F.I.R. No.171 of 1999 registered on 3-8-1999 with Police Station Ahmad Yar, District Pakpattan Sharif, under sections 302/34, P.P.C. For the murder of one Mussarat Bibi. In fact, it was an unseen occurrence and dead body of Mussarat Bibi was found. Thereafter, case was registered and investigation ensued. During course of a investigation, four accused- persons, namely, Talib Hussain (petitioner), Qadeer Ahmed, Muhammad Farooq and Muhammad Afzal were found involved for the commission of her murder. Muhammad Afzal and Talib Hussain were alleged to be empty-handed whereas Qadeer Ahmad and Muhammad Farooq were allegedly armed aimed, with some 12 bore pistols. The arms recovered from Qadeer Ahmad and Muhammad Farooq, according to learned State Counsel, were despatched to Forensic Science Laboratory alongwith the empties recovered from the place of occurrence. The empties have matched with the weapons recovered from Qadeer and Farooq. As regards Talib Hussain and Muhammad Afzal, there is evidence of Muhammad Rafiq, Muhammad Siddique and Muhammad Zaman P. Ws. Which according to the learned counsel is an extra judicial confession because the accused-persons were hereby the witness a conversating that they did not perform a good deal by doing Mst. Mussarat Bibi to death. According to learned counsel, the witnesses have no enmity against the petitioner, therefore, there is prima facie evidence available against the petitioner and therefore, the grant of bail is opposed. However, the learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the statements made by the said P. Ws. Unless corroborated by some evidence would be extremely insufficient to warrant conviction and at least, at present, the case against' the petitioner is at best be case of further inquiry. The contention is not without substance. The petitioner was allegedly empty handed, therefore, his case is distinguishable from the case of Qadeer and Farooq.
2. If there is any doubt even at bail stage, the benefit is to be extended to the accused-person.
3. Keeping in view this principle coupled with the facts that he is in custody since 29-10-1999, the trial has not even commenced so far, I would admit the petitioner to bail on his furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs.1,00,000 (Rupees one lac only) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial) Court.
Cited by 2 cases
- LAL BUX Versus State 2022 YLRN 158
- MARRIAM ANTHONY NOROHANA Versus State 2006 PCRLJ 1793