GHULAM MADNI vs THE STATE
This matter concerns a petition for post-arrest bail filed by the petitioner, who was implicated in a murder case registered under Section 302/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to bail given that he was not nominated in the First Information Report, no identification parade had been conducted to connect him to the alleged offence, and no incriminating evidence had been recovered from him. The Court held that the absence of the petitioner's name in the First Information Report, the failure to conduct an identification parade, and the lack of incriminating recoveries rendered the case one of further inquiry. Consequently, the Court accepted the bail petition, granting the petitioner bail subject to furnishing surety bonds. The key principle laid down is that where an accused is not nominated in the First Information Report and no identification parade has been held to connect them to the crime, the case against such an accused warrants further inquiry, justifying the grant of bail.
- Is an identification parade necessary to connect an accused to an offence when the accused is not nominated in the First Information Report?
- Does the absence of the accused's name in the First Information Report and the lack of incriminating recoveries constitute grounds for further inquiry in a bail application?
- Can bail be granted to an accused when the prosecution relies solely on statements that do not amount to extra-judicial confessions?
- Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 34, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
' The petitioner seeks post-arrest bail in F.I.R. No,173 of 1999, dated 11-8-1999 under section 302/34, P.P.C. Registered at Police Station Taranda Panah, District Rahimyar Khan.
2. The allegation against the petitioner is that on 11-8-1999 at 2-30 a.m. While the complainant Mst.
Rukhsana was going alongwith her husband Ghulam Mustafa, they were waylaid by four persons, out of whom one caught hold of her and when her husband tried to rescue her he was fired with a pistol hitting him on his neck. Resultantly the deceased fell on the spot and died. Thereafter Mst.
Rukhsana complainant lodged the instant F.I.R. Wherein she further stated that she could identify the assailants if shown to her.
3. The petitioner applied for bail which has been declined to him by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bahawalpur vide order, dated 23-10-2000. Hence the instant petition.
4. Arguments have been heard and record perused.
5. Stand of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that name of the petitioner does not appear in the F.I.R. As none of the assailants has been nominated therein, that Muhammad Iqbal and Atta Rasool have been shown' to be eye-witnesses in this case but they have also not nominated anyone of the assailants, that on 20-12-1999 the prosecution has recorded the statements of Muhammad Ayyaz and Muhammad Asghar wherein they have tried to involve the present petitioner and Abdul Hameed for abetting the offence which is alleged to have been committed at the instance of Shakeel Naich that statements of Muhammad Ayyaz and Muhammad Asghar do not fall even within the purview of extra-judicial confession and as such cannot be given any credence, that no Identification Parade has been held even to connect the petitioner with the commission of this offence, that in cases in which the accused are not nominated. Identification Parade is necessary and places reliance upon Muhammad Rafique v. The State (1997 SCM R 412), that the petitioner was arrested on 5-3-2000 and as such he is in jail for the last one year and two months, that two of the accused namely Shakeel Naich and Jamil Naich are absconders. He thus submits that all these facts make the case of the petitioner open for further inquiry.
6. Conversely the bail application has been opposed by the learned counsel for the State. However, he admits that except the statement of Muhammad Ayyaz and Muhammad Asghar no other evidence connecting the accused/petitioner with the commission of the offence has been collected by the prosecution.
7. Since the present petitioner 'is not the nominated accused nor any Identification Parade has been held to connect him with the commission of this offence nor any incriminating article has been recovered from him so these facts alone are sufficient to make the case of the petitioner open for further inquiry and further that the petitioner is in jail for the last one year and two months.
Accordingly the petition is accepted and the petitioner is admitted to bail in the sum of Rs,1,00,000 (Rupees One Lac Only) with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court.