Azhar Hussain vs The State
This criminal petition arises out of a bail after arrest application filed by Azhar Hussain seeking pre-trial liberty in case FIR No. 84 registered under Section 364 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, to which Sections 302 and 201 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 were later added at Police Station Saddar Sargodha. The core legal question concerns whether the petitioner was entitled to post-arrest bail given that his name did not appear in the initial FIR and his implication was based on a delayed extra-judicial confession recorded after a significant lapse of time. The Lahore High Court held that the petitioner's case fell within the scope of further inquiry under the law, noting the absence of his name in the FIR and the redundant nature of the alleged recoveries. The Court accordingly granted post-arrest bail to the petitioner, laying down the principle that unexplained delay in implicating an accused via subsequent statements and extra-judicial confessions warrants the grant of bail pending trial on the basis of further inquiry.
- Whether an accused whose name does not appear in the first information report is entitled to post-arrest bail?
- Does a case fall within the scope of further inquiry when it relies on a belated extra-judicial confession?
- Are recoveries made at the instance of an accused considered redundant when the foundational implication is questionable?
- Section 364, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 201, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
M. NAEEMULLAH KHAN SHERWANI, J.~ ln Chak No. 36 there took place an occurrence on 29.3.1998 at 9. p.m. Abdul Qayyum son of Noor Muhammad had left his house and was later seen in the company of one Pervaiz and thereafter his whereabouts were not known. Noor Muhammad, father of said Abdul Qayyum set the police functionaries into motion by getting case FIR No. 84 under Section 364, P.P.C, registered with Police Station Saddar Sargodha on 13.5.1998. Later on Sections 302 and 201, P.P.C, were added to the list of offences by the police during the course of investigation. Pervaiz, Riaz, Idris and IIyas were named as accused in the first information report. As the time passed on, it was on 15.5.2000 that the police recorded statements of the complainant and two witnesses, namely, Muhammad Barik and Zaheer Ahmed, It was pertaining to the alleged extra-judicial confession of Pervaiz, Umar Draz, Azhar and Sikandar Hayat. Petitioner, could be arrested by the police on 26.5.2000 after about 27 months of the occurrence. Petitioner preferred his application for the grant of bail after arrest before the learned Sessions Judge, Sargodha, which was made over to a learned Additional Sessions Judge, for its disposal in accordance with law. The said learned Addl.
Sessions Judge declined this relief to the petitioner by virtue of his Order dated 23.10.2000. Now through the instant petition he seeks same relief from this Court.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the complainant, assisted by learned counsel for the State have been heard at length. Admittedly, name of the petitioner does not figure in the first information report. He could be arrested by the police during the course of Investigation on the basis of joint extra-judicial confession. Recoveries, if any at his instance are redundant in nature, ln my view case of the petitioner falls within the ambit of further inquiry. Expression of opinion has been avoided on different pieces of evidence, lest it may prejudice case of either side.
3. Resultantly, I direct that the petitioner be released on bail subject to his furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rupees one lac only) with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of Trial Court.
4. Petitioner shall make himself available before the Trial Court on all dates of hearing of this case.
Any lapse on his part will disentitle him to enjoy this concession any further.