GHULAM MUSTAFA vs STATE
This criminal matter arises from a petition for post-arrest bail filed by Ghulam Mustafa against the State, concerning an offense where the deceased died of asphyxia caused by drowning. The core legal question is whether the petitioner is entitled to bail under the provisions of further inquiry, given that he was not named in the initial FIR, was subsequently named in a same-day supplementary statement, had no motive attributed, was not supported by any eyewitness account, and was declared innocent by the investigating DSP following a police inquiry. The Lahore High Court held that the case falls under the purview of further inquiry as the petitioner's complicity remains questionable under the circumstances, including the medical evidence regarding the cause of death and the conflicting police investigation findings. The court established the principle that where an accused is not named in the FIR, lacks a direct eyewitness account, has no motive attributed, and is found innocent during police investigation, a proper case for further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 is made out, warranting the grant of bail.
- Does the omission of an accused's name in the initial FIR, coupled with a later supplementary statement and a police report declaring innocence, make out a case for further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Whether the opinion of a police officer regarding the innocence of an accused during investigation is a relevant consideration for the grant of bail?
- Is an accused entitled to post-arrest bail when no motive is attributed and there is no eyewitness account of the alleged crime?
- Section 497(2), Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that in spite of the fact FIR was registered two days after the occurrence but name of the present petitioner was not mentioned in the FIR, that there is no eye witness in this case, that later on, complainant made a supplementary statement though on the same day but named the present petitioner, that case was also investigated by Khalid Mehmood DSP (investigation) Okara, who had verified the investigation of earlier Police officer and had given 10 reasons for innocence of the present petitioner and according to his investigation present petitioner was found to be innocent. Argues that according to postmortem report, the death of the deceased took place due to asphyxia caused by drowning.
Concluding his arguments, he submits that there is no injury on the person of the deceased, that case of the petitioner is of further inquiry falling under sub-section 2 of Section 497 Cr.P.C. and he is entitled for the grant of bail.
2. On the other hand, while opposing the prayers for bail made by the petitioner, learned State counsel submits that though the petitioner was not named in the FIR but he was named by the complainant in the supplementary statement on the same day, that there was no malafide on the part of the complainant who named the petitioner as one of the accused and moreover opinion of the DSP (investigation) is not binding on this Court.
3. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. According to the FIR, occurrence had taken place on 20.4.2004 while the matter was reported to the police by Muhammad Akram brother of the deceased on 22.4.2004, he also gave the supplementary statement on the same day i,e, 22.4.2004 named the present petitioner as one of the accused but the fact remains that according to Doctor .the cause of death of the deceased was due to asphyxia caused by drowning. Moreover, the statement of the complainant was that petitioner alongwith Nasreen Bibi and Mehmood Ahmad caused the death of the deceased. No motive is attributed to the present petitioner, he is not named in the FIR, it is not a case of eye witness account and moreover, Khalid Mehmood DSP (Investigation) Okara has declared the petitioner innocent. Under these circumstances, case of further inquiry falling under sub-section 2 of Section 497 Cr.P.C. is made out in, favour of the present Petitioner is allowed bail subject to furnishing bail bonds to the tune of Rs, 50,000/- (Fifty thousand) with two sureties in the like-amount to the satisfaction of trial Court.