ABDUL GHAFFAR and 2 others vs THE STATE
This criminal petition concerns an application for post-arrest bail filed by three petitioners, Abdul Ghaffar, Abdul Shakoor, and Nawab Khan, who were charged under Section 302/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for the alleged murder of Mst. Nusrat Mai. The prosecution alleged that the petitioners strangulated the victim due to suspicions of an illicit liaison. The core legal question was whether the petitioners were entitled to bail pending trial given the state of the evidence. The court observed that the petitioners were the brothers-in-law of the deceased and noted the contention that there was no incriminating material on the police record, a point not controverted by the State. Finding that the case against the petitioners required further inquiry into their guilt, the court held that the matter fell within the scope of Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. Consequently, the court accepted the bail petition, emphasizing that the lack of incriminating evidence and the petitioners' status as previous non-convicts justified the grant of bail.
- Does the absence of incriminating evidence on the police record justify the grant of bail under the principle of further inquiry?
- Is a case covered under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 when the prosecution fails to controvert the defense's claim of no incriminating evidence?
- Are previous non-convicts entitled to bail when the case against them requires further investigation?
- Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 34, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 497(2), Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
' Abdul Ghaffar, Abdul Shakoor and Nawab Khan, the petitioners have sought for post-arrest bail in case F.I.R. No,110 dated 23-8-2002 under section 302/34, P.P.C. Registered with Police Station Darkhast Jamal Khan, District Dera Ghazi Khan.
2. Briefly the prosecution case as per F.I.R. Is that on 23-8-2002 at about 12-00 night they had strangulated Mst. Nusrat Mai, the daughter of the complainant to death by hanging her with the beam of kitchen in the house of her husband Bagh Ali.
3. The motive behind the occurrence is that they had suspected her illicit liaison with one Ajmal of their village.
4. It has been contended on their behalf that they had falsely been roped in being the real brothers of the husband of deceased; that there is absolutely no incriminating evidence against them on police record and hence the case against them requires further inquiry into their guilt; and that they are behind the bars for the last about nine months and are previous non-convict.
5. Conversely, the learned counsel for the State has opposed the petition on the ground that they are named in the F.I.R. And that they in furtherance of their common intention had strangulated the deceased daughter of the complainant to death as they had suspicion of her illicit liaison with one Ajmal of their village.
6. I have carefully considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties with the help of available record.
7. Allegedly they had strangulated the deceased Mst. Nusrat Mai to death by hanging her with the beam of kitchen in the house of her husband Bagh Ali.
8. It has been contended on their behalf that there is absolutely no incriminating material/evidence on police record against them. This has not been controverted by the learned counsel for the State.
9. I, therefore, find that the case against them certainly needs further inquiry into their guilt and so the same is covered under subsection (2) of section 497, Cr.P.C. They are behind the bars for the last about nine months and previous non-convicts.
10. In these circumstances, I find them entitled to bail. The petition, therefore, is accepted and they are admitted to bail provided they furnish bail bonds in the sum of Rs,1,00,000 (Rupees one lac) each with one surety each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned Sessions Judge, D.G.
Khan/trial Court.