Find a Lawyer

‑‑S. 497‑‑Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 302 & 364/34‑‑Bail, grant of‑ Dead body recovered on pointing out by accused from gutter of latrine in his cattle‑pen‑‑Evidence of extra‑judicial confession and motive, prima facie furnished reasonable ground to believe accused guilty of committing murder‑‑Bail refused in circumstances.

Mst. Hurmat v. State 1986 P Cr. L J 1017 and Basharat alias Fazal Elahi and others v. The State 1986 P Cr. L J 1099 ref.

Muhammad Akram Sheikh for Petitioner.

Tasaddaq Hussain Jilani, A.A.‑ G. for the State.

Insaf Bhatti for the Complainant.

Muhammad Idrees petitioner stands arrested for having abducted and killed Asghar with the help of Muhammad Sharif etc. his co‑accused. His bail plea was declined by the lower Court, hence this application.

2. Din Muhammad complainant, father of Muhammad Asghar, reported at Police Station Duniapur on 19‑2‑1986 that on 13‑2‑1986 he was present at the tailoring shop of the deceased alongwith Iqbal and Muhammad Musa P.Ws. when Idrees petitioner and his co‑accused Muhammad Sharif came there and took alongwith them Muhammad Asghar deceased to Multan on the pretext of purchasing cloth whereafter Muhammad Asghar did not return. He went to the house of Idrees petitioner and Muhammad Sharif to enquire as to the whereabouts of Muhammad Asghar who disclosed to them that they had confined the deceased somewhere for he had illicit connections with Mst. Shameem sister of Idrees petitioner and that they would return him on the following day. As they did not keep up their promise, therefore, he was obliged to lodge the report. Initially a case under section 364/34, P.P.C. was registered.

3. During the investigation, Abdul Razzaq Shah and Mehr Muhammad Hanif produced Idrees/petitioner as well as Muhammad Sharif his co accused before the police as they had confessed before them their guilt to have killed Muhammad Asghar by strangulation with the help of Fauj Din, Ismail Aslam and Muhammad Yunis. The police having arrested the accused, interrogated them. Idrees petitioner led to the recovery of the dead body of Muhammad Asghar deceased from the gutter of his cattle- pen and also got recovered a ring bearing name of the deceased and his other belongings. The factum of recovery of the dead body and the belongings of the deceased effected at the instance of Idrees petitioner, have been deposed to by Ramzan, Abdul Khaliq, Khuda Bakhsh and Ghulam Rasul P.Ws. The doctor who performed post‑mortem examination has reported that the deceased had died of asphyxia as the neck of the deceased had been found as depressed.

4. It is stated that Muhammad Sharif, co‑accused of the petitioner, had turned approver and he is being produced today before the Magistrate for recording his statement after tendering pardon to him. As the proceedings are in progress in that regard, therefore, its record has not been produced today.

5. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that this petition may be decided on material available on record today. He argued that the case lacks direct evidence and hinges on circumstantial evidence. He further contended that the evidence of extra‑judicial confession, recovery of dead body of Muhammad Asghar deceased at the instance of the petitioner hardly furnish reasonable ground to believe that he is guilty of the offence of committing deceased's murder and, therefore, he deserves to be released on bail. In this connection learned counsel has referred to authorities which may be noted hereunder:‑

Mst. Hurmat v. State 1986 P Cr. L J 1017 and Basharat alias Fazal Elahi and others v. The State 1986 P Cr. L J 1099.

In the first mentioned case, the accused was a woman who was allowed bail because the incident was reported one year after the occurrence and the dead body was exhumed after seven months. In the second case, the accused were allowed bail as recovery of the dead body of the deceased was effected on joint pointation ‑of the accused, which obviously was an inadmissible evidence. It would therefore, be seen that both cases relied upon by the learned counsel proceeded on materially different facts than the facts of the ease in hand.

6. In the instant case the petitioner had pointed out the gutter of the latrine in his cattle‑pen from where the deceased's dead body has been recovered. Besides it, there is evidence of extra‑judicial confession and motive which prima facie furnish reasonable ground to believe that he is guilty of committing offence of murder. In the circumstances, I am of the view that he is not entitled to the grant of bail. This petition is, therefore, dismissed.

S.A./M‑38/L Bail refused.

Find a Lawyer Near You

Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.