MUHAMMAD JAMEEL vs THE STATE
This matter concerns a petition for post-arrest bail filed by the petitioner, Muhammad Jameel, who was implicated in a case of Qatl-i-Amd (murder) 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 named in the initial First Information Report (F.I.R.), the investigating officer had noted a lack of evidence connecting him to the crime, and no incriminating articles were recovered from him. The Court held that the petitioner was entitled to bail, reasoning that the absence of his name in the F.I.R., the lack of incriminating recovery, and the investigating officer's own assessment that the complainant failed to produce evidence against him rendered the case one of further inquiry. The key principle laid down is that where the prosecution fails to connect an accused to the alleged offence through concrete evidence or recovery, and the accused is not named in the F.I.R., the case falls within the scope of further inquiry, justifying the grant of bail under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898.
- Does the absence of an accused's name in the F.I.R. combined with a lack of incriminating recovery constitute grounds for further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Can an accused be granted bail when the investigating officer has recorded that the complainant failed to produce evidence connecting the accused to the crime?
- Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 34, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
' Muhammad Jameel, the petitioner through the instant petition has sought for post-arrest bail in case F.I.R. No,186 dated 1-8-2002, under section 302/34, P.P.C., registered with Police Station, Talumba District Khanewal.
2. Briefly the allegation against him is of Qatl-i-Amd of deceased Abdul Sattar.
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 on 20-9-2002 the Investigating Officer has expressed his opinion that the complainant had not been able to produce any evidence against him to connect him with the crime; that no incriminating article was recovered from him; that there is no incriminating evidence against him on record and in these circumstances the case against him calls for further inquiry into his guilt; and that he is behind the bars since 6-9-2002 and is previous non-convict.
4. Conversely, the learned State counsel assisted by the learned counsel for the complainant has opposed the petition on the ground that he is in the supplementary statement of Abdul Ghaffar, Din Muhammad and Mst. Parveen recorded on the same day i,e,, 1-8-2002 has been stated to be the murderer of the deceased Abdul Sattar and so he is connected with the alleged offence.
5. I have carefully considered the submissions made from both the sides with the help of available record.
6. The fact remains that he is hut named in the F.I.R. He on the basis of suspicion laid against him in the statement of Abdul Ghaffar and Muhammad Ali has been implicated in the instant case. Syed Mukhtar Hussain Shah, S.-1./S.H.O. Of the concerned police station in his case diary dated 20-9- 2002 has mentioned that the complainant party sticks to their version that he is murderer of the deemed while he claims himself to be innocent and that the complainant party could not produce any evidence or proof against him.
7. Besides than this, no incriminating recovery of any kind has been effected from him. All the above factors render his case to further inquiry and so the same is covered under subsection (2) of section 497, Cr.P.C.
8. He is stated to be behind the bars eversince his arrest and a previous non-convict. In these circumstances, the case for his enlargement on bail has been made out. Resultantly, this petition is accepted and he is admitted to bail provided he furnishes bail bonds in the sum of Rs,1,00,000 with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court. I may mention here that any observation made above shall not influence the mind of the trial Court.