LIAQAT ALI vs THE STATE
This matter concerns a petition for post-arrest bail filed by an accused charged under Section 302/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 in connection with a murder case. The core legal question was whether the petitioner, who was not named in the initial First Information Report (F.I.R.) and against whom the prosecution's case shifted during investigation, was entitled to bail. The Court observed that the original accused named in the F.I.R. were declared innocent by the police, and the petitioner was subsequently implicated based on supplementary statements that merely raised suspicion. The Court held that, given the absence of substantial incriminating evidence beyond the disputed recovery of a weapon, the petitioner's case fell within the scope of further inquiry into his guilt. Consequently, the Court granted post-arrest bail, reaffirming the principle that if an accused is found entitled to bail on merits, they should not be detained in custody regardless of the duration of their incarceration.
- Whether an accused not named in the F.I.R. is entitled to bail when the investigation shifts suspicion onto them?
- Does the recovery of a crime weapon, when disputed by the accused, constitute sufficient grounds to deny bail?
- Is an accused entitled to bail when the case against them requires further inquiry into their guilt under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 34, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
Liaqat Ali petitioner seeks after arrest bail in case F.I.R. No.235 dated 19-7-2001, under section 302/34, P.P.C. With Police Station Sadar, Kabirwala, District Khanewal.
2. Briefly the prosecution case as per F.I.R. Is that he has committed the murder of the deceased Maqbool.
3. It has been contended on his behalf that he has falsely been roped in; that he is not named in the F.I.R. That there is no incriminating evidence against him; that the recovery of the alleged crime weapon has been planted upon him and he has never led to any such recovery; that during the investigation the accused nominated in the F.I.R. Has been found to be innocent and thereafter prosecution has changed its version and has brought him for the nominated accused in the F.I.R.; and that he is behind the bars and is previous non-convict.
4. On the other hand learned State Counsel has opposed the application on the ground that during the investigation it has been found that in fact he has murdered the deceased Maqbool and that he has led to the recovery of the crime weapon.
5. I have carefully considered the submissions advanced from both the sides with the help of the available record.
6. The fact remains that he is not named in the F.I.R. In the same Allah Rakaha is shown to have fired at the deceased hitting him on the left side of the chest and the other fire hitting him on the upper part of the arm, who succumbed to the injuries at the spot. In the same Allah Rakha is also said to have fired at his were Mst. Nasreen Bibi as a result whereof she was injured. The alleged occurrence has taken place on the night between 18/19-7-2001. The police in the investigation have declared the accused nominated in the F.I.R. As innocent and instead had arrested him (petitioner).
7. The learned State counsel has shown me the supplementary statements of Manzoor Hussain complainant and one Muhammad Riaz. In the same, they have laid suspicion that he (petitioner) had murdered the deceased Maqbool. The learned State Counsel has frankly conceded that except this evidence, there is no other incriminating evidence on record against him or that of recovery of crime weapon.
8. In view of the above position that some other persons were nominated in the F.I.R. As culprits and the deceased was shown to have died due to the fire-arm injuries caused to him by Allah Rakha and in the aforesaid supplementary statement of the complainant and Muhammad Riaz , only suspicion has been shown that he knew that who has murdered the deceased and admittedly , there is no other incriminating evidence against him except recovery of alleged crime weapon, about which he has taken plea that it was planted to him, his case has become of further inquiry into his guilt and is covered under subsection (2) or section 497, Cr.P.C.
9. Here I may mention that though as per record he was arrested on 5-5-2002, but it is settled proposition of law that when an accused otherwise on merits is found entitled to bail, he may not be kept in the jail for a moment even.
10. I, therefore, accept this application and admit him to bail provided he furnishes bail bond in the sum of Rs.1,00,000 (one lace) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court.