HABIB-ULLAH and 2 others vs STATE
This matter concerns a post-arrest bail application filed by three petitioners in connection with FIR No. 63/2001, registered under Sections 302, 201, and 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, regarding the murder of a young man whose body was discovered in a dry well. The core legal question was whether the petitioners were entitled to bail given that the prosecution's case rested solely on extra-judicial confessions allegedly made to witnesses long after the occurrence. The Court held that the petitioners were entitled to bail. The ratio of the decision is that the evidence linking the petitioners to the crime was prima facie tainted and unreliable. The Court reasoned that it was highly improbable for the petitioners to confess to witnesses after a significant delay of one and a half years, and equally improbable for those witnesses to remain silent for ten months before reporting the matter to the police. Consequently, the Court found the case against the petitioners to be one of further inquiry, warranting the grant of bail pending trial.
- Whether an extra-judicial confession made after a significant delay constitutes sufficient grounds to deny bail?
- Does the unexplained silence of witnesses regarding an alleged extra-judicial confession render the prosecution's case a matter of further inquiry?
- Is a case based solely on delayed extra-judicial confessions sufficient to justify the continued detention of the accused?
- Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 201, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 34, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
This is bail after arrest application in case FIR No, 63/2001, dated 17.4.2001, under Sections 302/201/34 P.P.C. of Police Station Noorpur, District Khushab.
2. According to the prosecution allegations set out in the FIR lodged by Sher Alam Khan complainant on 15.4.2001, his son Asma tullah Khan aged 19/20 years left his house for Isha prayer and thereafter he did not return home. A search was conducted and then on 17.4.2001 at 8.00 a.m. the dead body of Asmatullah Khan was found lying within the precinct of Govt. Degree College of Noorpur and consequently the complainant lodged this FIR by alleging that some unknown 'assailants had murdered his son and had thrown his dead body in a dry well.
3. Initially the investigations in this case were conducted and this case was filed as un-traced. The Petitioners had earlier been joined in the police investigations by various police officers and they were found to be not involved in the occurrence. However, on 29.7.2003 Shafqat Ullah recorded statements of four P.Ws. namely Khurshid, Ghulam Muhammad, Ghulam Qadir and Majeed, who all stated that about 9/10 months ago, the petitioners came to them and confessed to have killed Asmat Ullah Khan deceased on account of some monetary dispute and thereafter on 28.7.2003 Ghulam Jafar and Nasrullah P.Ws. stated before the police that they had taped extra judicial confession of Muhammad Naeem petitioner that he along-with remaining petitioners had killed Asmatullah Khan deceased on account of some monetary transaction.
4. The only incriminating material against the Petitioners is their extra-judicial confession mad before the P.Ws. about one and half years after the occurrence and then the said P.Ws. remained quite for almost ten months and did not report about the said fact to the police and revealed the said extra judicial confession before the police after ten months. Prima facie, there was no necessity on the part of the Petitioners to go to the P.Ws and to make the extra-judicial confession after the delay of one and half years and, then if any such extra-judicial confession had been made before the P.Ws., then it was highly improbable that they would keep quite for 10 months.
Therefore, the evidence linking the petitioner with the occurrence is tainted one and makes the case of the petitioner a matter of further inquiry. As such, they are admitted to 'bail in the sum of Rs, 50,000/- each with one surety each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court.
5. The observation of this Court in this case is of tentative nature and will not prejudice the proceedings of the trial Court.