BILAL vs THE STATE
This matter concerns a petition for post-arrest bail filed by the petitioner, who was initially named in the First Information Report. The core legal question before the Court was whether the petitioner was entitled to bail given the conflicting evidence presented by the prosecution and the investigating officer. The Court examined the record, including the complainant's supplementary statement and statements of witnesses recorded under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The Court observed that the investigating officer had misrepresented the contents of the witness statements, which, contrary to his claims, did not implicate the petitioner. Finding that the complainant had exonerated the petitioner in a supplementary statement and that the remaining witness statements failed to establish the petitioner's involvement, the Court held that the case against the petitioner required further inquiry. Consequently, the Court allowed the petition and admitted the petitioner to bail. The judgment reinforces the principle that where the prosecution's evidence is inconsistent or fails to implicate the accused, the case falls within the scope of further inquiry under the relevant bail provisions.
- Does a case fall under the category of further inquiry when the investigating officer misrepresents the contents of witness statements to the Court?
- Is an accused entitled to bail when the complainant's supplementary statement exonerates them and other witness statements fail to implicate them?
- What is the effect of a discrepancy between the investigating officer's oral submissions and the actual record of witness statements under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Section 497(1), Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 497(2), Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 161, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
' Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that though the petitioner was named in the F.I.R. But later on the complainant filed a Constitutional petition before this Court which was disposed of with a direction to the Investigating Officer to record his supplementary statement which was recorded, that according to the said supplementary statement name of the petitioner is not mentioned as an accused and that case of the petitioner does not fall within the prohibitory clause of section 497(1), Cr.P.C.
2. Learned counsel for the State has not been able to controvert the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner.
2-A. Muhammad Idrees S.-I. Has appeared along with the record. He informed this Court, in open Court, that there are statements of Hazi Azhar, Liaqat Gujjar and Muhammad Wazir implicating the petitioner in the case. I have myself gone through the supplementary statement and the statements of the above-said three persons. Nazir Muhammad exonerated the petitioner in the supplementary statement. Perusal of the statements of Hazi Azhar, Liaqat Gujjar and Muhammad Wazir shows that neither of them have implicated the petitioner in the said statements recorded under section 161, Cr.P.C. I am sorry to say that S.-I. Muhammad Idrees informed this Court that all the three above mentioned witnesses have implicated the petitioner through their above statements.
3. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, having gone through the record produced by Idrees S.-I. Including the supplementary statements, the case diaries and the statements of Hazi Azhar, Liaqat Gujjar and Muhammad Wazir recorded under section 161, Cr.P.C. And having given anxious consideration to the submissions made at the Bar. I am of the considered view that the case of the petitioner is one of further inquiry falling under subsection (2) to section 497, Cr.P.C.
Resultantly, this petition is allowed and the petitioner is admitted to bail subject to his furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs,50,000 with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court.