GHULAM MUSTAFA vs THE STATE
This matter concerns a post-arrest bail application filed by the petitioner, who was implicated in a murder case despite not being named in the initial First Information Report (F.I.R.). The core legal question was whether the petitioner's case fell within the scope of 'further inquiry' under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, thereby entitling him to bail. The petitioner argued that the F.I.R. was delayed, he was not named therein, no eyewitnesses existed, and a police investigation by the D.S.P. (Investigation) had declared him innocent. Additionally, the medical report indicated the cause of death was asphyxia due to drowning, with no external injuries. The Court held that given the absence of the petitioner's name in the F.I.R., the lack of attributed motive, the medical findings, and the police report declaring him innocent, the case warranted further inquiry. Consequently, the Court granted bail, establishing the principle that where the prosecution's case lacks strong corroborative evidence and police investigation supports the accused's innocence, the accused is entitled to bail under the 'further inquiry' provision.
- Whether an accused not named in the F.I.R. is entitled to bail when a subsequent police investigation declares him innocent?
- Does a medical report indicating death by drowning without external injuries constitute grounds for further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Is the opinion of a D.S.P. (Investigation) regarding the innocence of an accused binding on the Court during bail proceedings?
- Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
' It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that in spite of the fact F.I.R. Was registered two days after the occurrence but name of the present petitioner was not mentioned in the F.I.R., 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, D . S . P. (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 post-mortem 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 subsection 2 of the 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 F.I.R. But he was named by the complainant in the supplementary statement on the same day, that there was no mala fide on the part of the complainant who named the petitioner as one of the accused and moreover opinion of the D.S.P. (Investigation) is not binding on this Court.
3. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. According to the F.I.R., 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 along with 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 F.I.R., it is not a case of eye-witness account and moreover, Khalid Mehmood, D.S.P. (Investigation) Okara has declared the petitioner innocent. Under these circumstances, case of further inquiry falling under subsection (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.