AAMIR alias AHMAD MUSHTAQ vs THE STATE
The petitioner Aamir alias Ahmad Mushtaq sought post-arrest bail in case F.I.R. No. 61 dated 8-2-2002 registered under section 302/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 at Police Station Khurrianwala, District Faisalabad, concerning the murder of a young boy whose body was discovered in a wheat field. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to post-arrest bail given his non-nomination in the F.I.R., his exoneration in successive police investigations, the belated introduction of last-seen evidence, and a doubtful extra-judicial confession. The Lahore High Court held that the circumstances of the case brought it within the scope of further inquiry under section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. Consequently, the court admitted the petitioner to post-arrest bail subject to furnishing appropriate bail bonds. The key principle laid down is that where an accused is not nominated in the F.I.R., is found innocent in police investigations, and the primary evidence against him consists of belatedly produced last-seen testimony and a questionable extra-judicial confession, the case warrants further inquiry, justifying the grant of bail.
- Whether an accused who is not nominated in the F.I.R. and is found innocent in successive police investigations is entitled to post-arrest bail?
- Does a belatedly introduced last-seen evidence and a questionable extra-judicial confession make a criminal case one of further inquiry under section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Can bail be granted when the primary circumstances of the case point towards further inquiry into the guilt of the petitioner?
- Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 34, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 161, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
The petitioner Aamir alias Ahmad Mushtaq is asking for his post-arrest bail in case F.I.R. No,61 dated 8-2-2002 registered under section 302/34, P.P.C. at Police Station Khurrianwala District Faisalabad.
2. According to learned counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner is not nominated in the F.I.R. and has been found innocent in three successive investigations and he refers to one of the Zimnis in this connection recorded by the A.S.P/S.D.P.O Jaranwala dated 20-6-2002.
3. This appears to be a blind murder. Razzaq a boy aged about 12 years, who was the nephew of the complainant, went out of his house and subsequently two days later his dead body was found in a field of wheat and injury on his neck was also discovered and the complainant suspected that some unknown persons after committing sodomy with him had killed him.by strangulating his neck.
4. The petitioner, it appears, was subsequently implicated in the case on the basis of last seen evidence which allegedly had been created belatedly to implicate the petitioner as no mention of this was made in the F.I.R. registered thereafter. That another piece of evidence against him is said to be an extra-judicial confession. He was arrested on 3-3-2002 which is after about three weeks from the date of the occurrence.
5. When the police after holding him innocent, moved for his discharge, the Ilaqa Magistrate refused to discharge him.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that extra-judicial confession is not believable because the person to whom it is made was closely related to the complainant side and that at the time of recording the statement under section 161. Cr.P.C. there was no mention of the extra-judicial confession.
All the circumstances put forth before this Court and briefly mentioned above do make this case one of further inquiry as far as the guilt of the present petitioner is concerned. Consequently, the petitioner is admitted to bail subject to his furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs,1,00,000 with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court.