SHARAFAT ALI vs THE STATE
This matter arises from a criminal petition for post-arrest bail filed by Sharafat Ali, who stands accused along with others in Crime Report No. 37 of 2001 registered under sections 302, 392, and 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 at Police Station Kahna, Lahore. The core legal question concerns whether a joint extra-judicial confession made to partisan witnesses and subsequent weak recoveries constitute sufficient grounds to deny post-arrest bail in a case involving an unseen crime. The Lahore High Court accepted the petition and held that joint extra-judicial confessions are generally not relied upon by superior courts, that the prosecution witnesses were party men of the complainant, and that the recoveries were inconsequential. The Court laid down the principle that cases resting on shaky extra-judicial confessions and doubtful recoveries fall within the ambit of further inquiry under section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, entitling the accused to bail.
- Whether a joint extra-judicial confession is admissible and reliable for refusing post-arrest bail?
- Are recoveries of a danda and clothes of the deceased considered inconsequential when evaluating a bail petition?
- Does a case resting on questionable extra-judicial confessions and partisan witnesses fall within the ambit of further inquiry?
- Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 392, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 34, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
Petitioner alongwith three others namely Sharafat, Faryad and Shah Nawaz stand involved in Crime Report No,37 of 2001 under sections 302/392/34, P.P.C. registered with Police Station Kahna, Lahore on 25-1-2001 at the instance of Muhammad Sharif brother of Muhammad Siddique, deceased of this case.
2. According to facts as revealed through contents of the F.I.R. some unknown persons had committed mactation of Muhammad Siddique. His legs were tied and a constriction around his neck was also available. Petitioner could be arrested on 17-5-2001, on the basis of extra-judicial confession, allegedly made by him and his co-accused namely Faryad and Shah Nawaz before, Muhammad Tufail and Abdul Qayyum P.Ws. residents of Green Town, Lahore on 17,5-2001. Subsequent to their arrest certain recoveries like Danda and a pair of clothes of the deceased were made by the police. Petitioner earlier moved an application for post-arrest bail before a learned Additional Sessions Judge at Lahore who dismissed the same through his order dated 25-1-2002 on the basis of multifarious reasons embodied in the order itself.
3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that it was an unseen incident and that so-called extra-judicial confession is not per se admissible in evidence. It has been fabricated after a lapse of six months of the occurrence; that there was no earthly reason for the petitioner and others to approach Muhammad Tufail and Abdul Qayyum to make a clean, breast of their guilt.
4. Conversely learned cotinsel for the State after due consultation of record submits that there is evidence of extra-judicial confession of the petitioner and his co-accused linking them with the commission of crime in question which is also corroborated by medical evidence, Danda and clothes of the deceased.
5. I have courteously heard and soberly considered respective arguments of both the sides.
Statements of Muhammad Tufail and Abdul Qayyum have been read out in Court. Contents thereof reveal that it is in the form of a joint extra-judicial confession. The superior Courts of Pakistan have never relied upon this type of evidence. Recovery of a Shirt, Shalwar and a Danda is inconsequential. Such-like recoveries could be easily fabricated.
Tufail and Abdul Qayyutn P.Ws., before whom the alleged extra-judicial confession was made are party men of the complainant.
6. I am of the firm view that allegations against the petitioner squarely fall within the ambit of further inquiry. Resultantly, by accepting this petition I direct that the petitioner be released ' from custody subject to his furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs,50,000 with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of trial Court.
Let the petitioner take this warning once for all that he will appear on each and every date of hearing before the trial Court and in case he fails to do so, learned trial Court will be at liberty to cancel his bail and commit him to custody till culmination of his trial.