گرفتاری کے بعد ضمانت دینے سے انکار کرتے ہوئے کیس کا جائزہ صرف عارضی طور پر لیا جانا چاہیے اور ریکارڈ کی گہرائی سے تعریف اس مرحلے پر نہ تو جائز ہے اور نہ ہی....................

 PLJ 2024 Cr.C. (Note) 204

[Lahore High Court, Multan Bench]

Present: Sardar Muhammad Sarfraz Dogar, J.

MUHAMMAD TARIQ--Petitioner

versus

STATE etc.--Respondents

Crl. Misc. No. 3577-B of 2024, decided on 10.6.2024.

Criminal Procedure Code, 1898 (V of 1898)--

----ایس 497- پاکستان پینل کوڈ (1860 کا ایکس ایل وی)، ایس ایس 302/324/109/148/149/34-- ایف آئی آر میں نامزد نہیں کیا گیا- ضمنی بیان-- گرفتاری کے بعد ضمانت- درخواست گزار کو ایف آئی آر میں نامزد نہیں کیا گیا تھا- اسے ضمنی بیان کے ذریعے ملوث نہیں کیا گیا تھا- مبینہ واقعے کے دوران، درخواست گزار گاڑی چلا رہا تھا- کوئی بھی شخص زخمی نہیں ہوا تھا۔ یہ اس کے تقدس کو کھو دیتا ہے - مزید تفتیش کے لئے درخواست گزار کی جسمانی تحویل کی پولیس کو ضرورت نہیں ہے - گرفتاری کے بعد ضمانت کی اجازت ہے۔

----S. 497--Pakistan Penal Code, (XLV of 1860), Ss. 302/324/109/148/ 149/34--Not nominate in FIR--Supplementary statement--No overt act--Post arrest bail--Grant of--Petitioner was not nominated in FIR--he was implicated through supplementary statement--During the alleged incident, petitioner was driving the car-No overt act or causing any injury to deceased or anyone else has been attributed to the petitioner--Any statement of the PW if recorded at a belated stage, it looses its sanctity--Physical custody of the petitioner is no more required to the police for further investigation--Post arrest bail is allowed.            [Para 4 & 6] B & F

Post Arrest Bail--

گرفتاری کے بعد ضمانت دینے سے انکار کرتے ہوئے کیس کا جائزہ صرف عارضی طور پر لیا جانا چاہیے اور ریکارڈ کی گہرائی سے تعریف اس مرحلے پر نہ تو جائز ہے اور نہ ہی مطلوب ہے- ملزم کے حق میں فائدہ بڑھایا جا سکتا ہے۔

----Scope of--While declining the post arrest bail, case is to be assessed only tentatively and deeper appreciation of the record is neither permissible nor desireable at this stage--Benefit can be extended in favour of the accused.                                                                                        [Para 4] A

2021 SCMR 2011 ref.

Post Arrest Bail--

ضمانت کی درخواست پر فیصلہ کرتے وقت عدالت کو ریکارڈ پر موجود مواد کو دیکھ کر مطمئن ہونا پڑتا ہے، یعنی کچھ ٹھوس ثبوت موجود ہیں یا نہیں، جن کو اگر بغیر کسی وضاحت کے چھوڑ دیا جائے تو ملزم کے جرم کا اندازہ لگایا جا سکتا ہے۔

----Scope of--At the time of deciding bail application, court has o satisfy itself by looking at the material available on the record, that is to whether there is or is not, some tangible evidence which, if left unrebutted, may lead to the inference of the guilt of the accused.                                               

                                                                                             [Para 4] B

PLD 2021 SC 738 ref.

Delay in recording statement of PW--

----Bail--Any statement of the PW if recorded at a belated stage, it looses its sanctity.  [Para 5] D

1996 SCMR 1553; 2020 SCMR 1049 ref.

Supplementary Statement--

----Veracity of the Supplementary statement can only be done by the learned trial court after recourse of evidence.                                                                                        [Para 5] E

2012 SCMR 1137; PLJ 2016 SC 14; 2019 SCMR 1458; 2020 SCMR 871; 2021 SCMR 138; 2011 SCMR 1725 ref.

Khawaja Qaiser Butt, Advocate for Petitioner.

Mr. Hassan Mahmood Khan Tareen, Deputy Prosecutor General for State.

Malik Muhammad Usman Bhatti, Advocate for the Complainant.

Date of hearing: 10.6.2024.

Order

Through this petition, the petitioner seeks post-arrest bail in case FIR No. 793 dated 09.11.2023 offences under Sections 302, 324, 109, 34, 148/149, PPC registered at Police Station Jaleel Abad Multan.

2. Briefly the facts of the case are that on 09.11.2023 at about 06:45 P.M., three unknown accused while armed with different weapons launched murderous assault upon the complainant father namely Muhammad Amin while making indiscriminate firing on his car, whereby complainant’s father received at least 25/30 fires on his person and one Abdul Kareem, who was sitting on rear seat, also received fire-arm injuries on different parts, consequently, father of complainant namely Muhammad Amin lost his life at the spot whereas Abdul Kareem-injured was succumbed to the injuries, later on.

3. Arguments heard. Record perused.

4. There is no doubt that while deciding the post arrest bail, case is to be assessed only tentatively and deeper appreciation of the record is neither permissible nor desirable at this stage, However, when, the Court satisfies itself in reaching to the conclusion that the facts & circumstances of the prosecution case cumulatively or apparently form a doubt, then the benefit of the same can be extended in favour of the accused. Reliance in this regard, can be placed upon the case titled as “Resham Khan and another vs. The State” (2021 SCMR 2011) wherein Paragraph No. 8, the august Supreme Court of Pakistan has held as under:

“The insight and astuteness of further inquiry is a question which must have some nexus with the result of the case for which a tentative assessment of the material on record is to be considered for reaching just conclusion. The case of further inquiry pre-supposes the tentative assessment which may create doubt with respect to the involvement of accused in the crime. It is well settled that object of trial is to make an accused to face the trial and not to punish an under-trial prisoner. The basic idea is to enable the accused to answer criminal prosecution against him rather than to rot him behind the bar. Every accused is innocent until his guilt is proved and benefit of doubt can be extended to the accused even at bail stage if the facts of the case, so warrant. The basic philosophy of criminal jurisprudence is that the prosecution has to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt and this principle applies at all stages including pre-trial and even at the time of deciding whether accused is entitled to bail or not ...”

Similarly, at the time of deciding the bail application of the petitioner, the Court has to satisfy itself by looking at the material available on the record, that as to whether there is, or is not, prima facie, some tangible evidence which, if left unrebutted, may lead to the inference of the guilt of the accused. Reliance in this respect is placed on case law “Muhammad Sarfraz Ansari, vs. The State and others” (PLD 2021 SC 738) wherein it has been described as under:

“We are fully cognizant of the well-settled principle that at the bail stage the Court is not to make deeper examination and appreciation of the evidence collected during investigation or to conduct anything in the nature of a preliminary trial to determine the accused’s guilt or innocence. However, for deciding the prayer of an accused for bail, the question whether or not there exist reasonable grounds for believing that he has committed the alleged offence cannot be decided in vacuum. The Court, for answering the said question, has to look at the material available on record when the bail is applied for and be satisfied that there is, or is not, prima facie, some tangible evidence which, if left unrebutted, may lead to the inference of the guilt of the accused ...”

5. Now, the petitioner was not nominated in the FIR rather he was implicated in the commission of crime through supplementary statement got recorded by the complainant on 11.11.2023, whereby during the alleged incident, the petitioner was driving the car and no overact or causing any injury to deceased or anyone else has been attributed to him. The supplementary statement was recorded after a delay of about two days of the alleged occurrence which too, does not disclose any strong and cogent reason in respect of involvement of petitioner. This is now a well settled proposition of law that any statement of the prosecution witnesses if recorded at a belated stage, it looses its sanctity. Reliance is placed on the judgments reported as “Abdul Khaliq vs. The State” (1996 SCMR 1553) and “Noor Muhammad vs. The State” (2020 SCMR 1049). This has also been enunciated by the august Supreme Court of Pakistan in recent case bearing Criminal Petition No. 263 of 2023 titled “Salman Zahid vs The State through P.G Sindh” heard and decided on 27.04.2023. Therefore, the veracity of the supplementary statement nominating the petitioner requires further probe & inquiry which can only be done by the learned trial Court after recourse to evidence. Since the petitioner has been assigned the role of facilitator and he has not caused any injury to the deceased or anyone else, hence, case against him calls for further inquiry calling into the guilt and it is the trial Court which would determine the same after recording of evidence. Reliance in this respect can be placed on the case law “Ehsan Ullah vs. The State” (2012 SCMR 1137). Similar view was reiterated by the august Supreme Court of Pakistan in the following cases reported as “Zaigham Ashraf vs. The State, etc..” (PLJ 2016 SC 14), “Saif Ullah vs. The State and others” (2019 SCMR 1458), “Babar Hussain vs. The State and another” (2020 SCMR 871) “Sajid vs Samin Ur Rehman (Deceased) through his father and others” (2021 SCMR 138) and “Muhammad Ashraf Asim vs. Sajjd Ahmad and others” (2011 SCMR 1725).

6. The petitioner is behind the bars since 29.04.2024. The investigation is complete. The physical custody of the petitioner is no more required to the police for further investigation. Thus, his further incarceration for an indefinite period would serve no useful purpose for the prosecution.

7. Keeping in view the above noted peculiar facts and circumstances of instant case and without discussing the other merits of the case lest it should prejudice the case of either side, this petition is hereby accepted and the petitioner is admitted to post arrest bail subject to his furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs. 2,00,000/-with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court. It is, however, clarified that the observations made hereinabove are tentative in nature, and strictly confined to the disposal of instant bail petition and shall not influence the trial Court in any manner.

(M.A.B.)