BAGHA alias BAGHEE vs THE STATE
This matter concerns a petition for post-arrest bail filed by the petitioner, who sought release on the grounds that he was not named in the First Information Report (F.I.R.), was falsely implicated, and that no specific injury was attributed to him, thereby warranting further inquiry under the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The State opposed the application, highlighting that the petitioner was named by the complainant and eye-witnesses in subsequent statements, incriminating recoveries were effected from him, and he possessed a prior criminal record involving theft and causing hurt. The Court held that despite the petitioner's absence from the initial F.I.R., his implication by multiple eye-witnesses, the recovery of evidence, and his established criminal history provided sufficient grounds to deny bail. The Court emphasized that where the investigation has progressed to the framing of charges and summoning of evidence, and the accused is implicated by credible witness testimony, the case does not fall within the scope of further inquiry, and bail must be refused.
- Does the absence of an accused's name in the F.I.R. automatically entitle them to bail?
- Can a petitioner's prior criminal history be considered when deciding a bail application?
- Is the naming of an accused in subsequent statements by eye-witnesses sufficient to establish a prima facie case for the purpose of bail?
- Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
' It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that petitioner is not named in the F.I.R., that he has been falsely implicated in this case, that recovery has been supplied by the complainant party, that he is not attributed any injury and that his case is of further inquiry falling under sub- clause (2) of section 497, Cr.P.C.
2. Learned State Counsel submits that recovery has been affected from the petitioner, that he is one of the accused, who along with three others committed the murder of the deceased, that challan has been submitted, charge has been framed and evidence has been summoned.
3. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. Though the petitioner is not named in the F.I.R. But he is named in the statement made by the complainant on the next day of the occurrence and all the three eye-witnesses. The other eye-witness, namely Ghulam Rasool has also named the petitioner, recovery has also been effected from him, he is already involved in three other cases, two of theft and one of causing hurt, he has been found guilty by the police, challan has been submitted, charge has been framed, evidence has been summoned, no case for bail is made out; therefore, this petition is dismissed.