GUL HASSAN vs THE STATE
This matter concerns a post-arrest bail application filed by the applicant, Gul Hassan, who was charged under sections 302, 201, 34, and 114 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for his alleged involvement in a murder case. The core legal question was whether the applicant was entitled to bail given the evidentiary weaknesses in the prosecution's case and the circumstances of his initial detention. The court observed that the identification test was compromised because the prosecution witnesses had already identified the applicant by name in their statements prior to the formal identification parade. Furthermore, the court noted that the applicant was alleged to be armed with a gun but did not use it, casting doubt on his constructive liability. Crucially, the court highlighted that the applicant had been illegally detained by the police for over a month, as confirmed by a Raid Commissioner. Consequently, the court held that the case against the applicant required further inquiry and granted bail, establishing that procedural irregularities in identification and evidence of illegal police detention are valid grounds for bail in criminal proceedings.
- Does the prior identification of an accused by witnesses before a formal identification parade necessitate further inquiry for the purpose of bail?
- Can evidence of illegal detention by police authorities serve as a ground for granting post-arrest bail?
- Does the absence of an overt act by an accused, despite being present at the scene of the crime, warrant further inquiry into their constructive liability?
- Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 201, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 34, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 114, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
1. ' Applicant Gul Hassan has been arrested for an offence punishable under sections 302, 201, 34/114, P.P.C.
2. ' According to F.I.R. Lodged by complainant Mehboob, murder of complainant's daughter namely Ghafooran took place on 12-10-2002 when the said deceased alongwith co-accused Suhrab and Mst. Sameena was busy in cutting grass. The complainant resides at a different place but as per F.I.R. He had gone alongwith P.Ws. To see his daughter. It is alleged in the F.I.R. That about 10-00 a.m.
3. One unidentified person appeared at the scene armed with gun and Ghafooran objected to his presence on which the said unidentified person instigated Suhrab and Mst. Sameena to kill Ghafooran and then within the sight of complainant Mehboob and his sons Abdul Karim and Shabir, the deceased Ghafooran was given injuries by Suhrab and Sameena with their sickles, causing her death. It is further alleged that with the assistance of said unknown persons Suhrab and Sameena removed the dead body and buried it at an unknown place. The complainant approached accused persons to return him the dead body but they kept him on hollow hopes. He lodged F.I.R. On 23-10-2002.
4. ' I have heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned Assistant Advocate-General. The Investigating Officer was also called to furnish the memo. Of identification as it was not available in the police papers.
5. ' It is noted that the applicant is being held as the said unidentified person. Surprisingly, the P.Ws.
6. Namely Abdul Karim and Shabbir in their statements recorded on 26-10-2002 that is to say before holding of identification test, stated that the said person was Gul Hassan. In this view of the matter the identification test held through these witnesses subsequently on 13-12-2002 would certainly bring the case within the ambit of further enquiry.
7. ' Again, the allegation against the applicant is that he was armed with gun but it is strange to note that he did not use the same. Learned Assistant Advocate-General, therefore, concedes to this extent that the role played by the applicant with respect to the offence under section 201 as also his constructive liability would require further enquiry.
8. ' Moreover, it is significant to mention that during the proceedings of a Constitutional Petition Civil Petition No,D-539 of 2002, the applicant and another were found illegally detained by the Raid Commissioner namely Reader of this Court who raided the Police Station Thull on 10-12-2002 at 6- 00 p.m. As there was no entry about the arrest of the applicant. There, the applicant complained that he is detained there for a period of about one and half months and was being maltreated. The report of Raid Commissioner and the order passed by the Court on 11-12-2002 have been placed on record.
9. ' In view of the circumstances enumerated above the bail plea is accepted and the application is allowed. The applicant be released on furnishing surety in the sum of Rs, 300,000 and executing P.R.
10. Bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court.