Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: MUHAMMAD IQBAL VS Respondent: THE STATE
1995 P Cr
1995 P Cr. L J 948
[Lahore]
Before Rao Naeem Hashim Khan, J
MUHAMMAD IQBAL---Petitioner
Versus
THE STATE---Respondent
Criminal Miscellaneous No.1918/B of 1994, decided on 29th January, 1995.
Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)---
----S. 497(2)---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), 5.302---Bail, grant of---Accused was not named in the F.I.R.---Extra-judicial confession allegedly made by accused was unnatural and very weak type of evidence---Accused had been arrested three days after the making of said extra-judicial confession and no explanation for the delay was furnished ---Case against accused was, therefore, doubtful and of further inquiry---Accused was admitted to bail accordingly.
Tariq Muhammad Iqbal Chaudhary for Petitioner.
Arshad Naeem for the State.
ORDER
Petitioner has applied for post-arrest bail in a case registered against him vide F.I.R. No.229/94, dated 30-6-1994 under section 302, P.P.C. at Police Station City, Pakpattan Sharif.
2. Brief facts of the case arising out of F.I.R. are that an information was received at the house of the complainant Muhammad Ramzan that his younger brother Noor Zaman who was constable, was going on Commando Course. On receipt of this information, he alongwith his one relative Abdul Sattar went to Pakpattan Sharif to visit him and as soon, they reached in the house of his brother, they saw that his dead body was lying on the cot in a room and he was profusely bleeding at that time. The complainant suspected that some body had committed the murder of his brother. He also reported that one empty of a bullet of a pistol was also lying near the cot. In his presence, Abdul Sattar, Constable and one Iqbal Qureshi also came there. The complainant also stated that personally he has no suspicion on any body of this murder.
3. It is stated by the learned counsel for the petitioner that petitioner is not named in the F.I.R.; that he is involved due to suspicion and doubt; that no independent witness of the locality was present at the time of occurrence and at the time of recovery; that no identification parade took place; that the only evidence in this case is of extra-judicial confession which is a weak type of evidence; that so-called extra-judicial confession was recorded on 4-7-1994 but the petitioner was arrested on 7-7-1994. There is no explanation of three days delay in the arrest of the petitioner and request for grant of bail has been made.
4. Contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner are opposed by the learned State counsel.
5. I have heard the arguments and gone through the record. The petitioner is not named in the F.I.R. The alleged extra-judicial confession is unnatural and very weak type of evidence. No one even a person of ordinary prudence can make extra-judicial confession especially in the absence of ocular evidence. Police Officers adopt such measures mala-fidely in order to get rid of unseen murder and submit challan in the Court. The possibility of false involvement of the petitioner cannot be ruled out. The so-called extra-judicial confession was recorded on 4-7-1994 and the petitioner was arrested on 7-7-1994. There is no explanation for the delay. This makes the case doubtful and that of further inquiry. It is the right of the accused to get benefit of doubt even at bail stage. In these circumstances, the petitioner is admitted to bail subject to furnishing his bail bonds in the sum of Rs.50,000 (Rupees fifty thousand only) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of I A.C./Duty Magistrate, Pakpattan Sharif.
6. Observations made in this order shall not affect the merits of the case.
N.H.Q./M-1991/L Bail allowed