PHULLAN vs THE STATE
This matter arises from a petition filed by Phullan seeking post-arrest bail in case F.I.R. No. 435 registered on 11-11-1999 at Police Station City Rajanpur for offences under sections 302, 34, and 109 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question revolves around whether the circumstantial evidence, comprising a delayed statement by a witness and recoveries made during investigation, warrants further inquiry into the guilt of the accused who was not nominated in the FIR and has been in jail for eighteen months. The Lahore High Court held that the case calls for further inquiry into the guilt of the petitioner within the meaning of subsection (2) of section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, as the prosecution relies on circumstantial evidence whose evidentiary value is to be determined at trial. Consequently, the court allowed the petition and admitted the petitioner to post-arrest bail subject to furnishing appropriate sureties.
- Whether post-arrest bail can be granted when the accused is not nominated in the FIR and the prosecution relies solely on circumstantial evidence?
- Does a delayed statement of a witness implicating an unnominated accused after sixteen days make the case one of further inquiry under subsection (2) of section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Is prolonged incarceration of about eighteen months a relevant consideration for granting bail when the investigation has already been finalized?
- Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 34, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 109, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 497(2), Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
' Through this petition Phullan petitioner has sought post-arrest bail in case F.1.R. No,435 registered at Police Station City Rajanpur on 11-11-1999 for offences under sections 302/34/109, P.P.C.
2. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and going through the documents appended with this petition it has been noticed that admittedly the occurrence in this case had taken place in the early hours of a November morning and the petitioner had not bccn nominated in the FIR. As one of the perpetrators of the offences in question.
' During the investigation the Investigating Officer had allegedly recovered a bicycle, an empty cartridge and some burnt pieces of cigarettes at the instance of the present petitioner. One Mst.
Pairi had made a statement before the Investigating Officer on 27-11-1999 i,e, after 16 days of the occurrence to the effect that she had seen the present petitioner running away at a place in the outskirts of the village soon after the occurrence and at that time the petitioner was empty- handed. In the absence of any direct evidence implicating the present petitioner in the alleged offences the prosecution is presently relying only upon the above mentioned circumstantial evidence so as to connect the present petitioner with the said offences. The worth and evidentiary value of the above mentioned pieces of circumstantial evidence shall be gone into by the learned trial Court at the time of the trial on the basis of the evidence to be led before it. The investigation regarding the present petitioner has already been finalized and the petitioner is languishing in jail for the last about eighteen months.
3. For what has been discussed above the case against the petitioner calls further inquiry into his guilt within the purview of subsection (2) of section 497, Cr.P.C. This petition is, therefore, allowed and the petitioner is admitted to bail subject to furnishing bail bond in the sum of Rs,50, 000 (Rupees fifty thousand only) with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court.