NIAMAT ALI vs ALI MUHAMMAD alias MANGTA and 2 others
This criminal miscellaneous petition was filed under the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 seeking the cancellation of post-arrest bail granted to respondents Nos. 1 and 2 by the Additional Sessions Judge, Lahore, in a case arising from F.I.R. No. 70 registered under sections 302, 201, 34, and 109 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the lower court erred in granting bail to the respondents when their names were introduced through a subsequent statement under section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 amidst divergent pleas and cross-allegations between the parties. The Lahore High Court dismissed the petition in limine, holding that the existence of divergent versions and conflicting pleas between the parties brought the case within the purview of further inquiry under subsection (2) of section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, thereby justifying the grant of bail. The key legal principle established is that where rival parties present divergent pleas and conflicting versions regarding involvement in an un-named crime, the matter falls within the scope of further inquiry under section 497(2), making bail appropriately grantable.
- Whether divergent pleas and cross-versions between rival parties justify the grant of post-arrest bail under section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Can bail be cancelled when the accused are not named in the initial F.I.R. and are implicated subsequently through a statement recorded under section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Whether the exercise of discretion by an Additional Sessions Judge in granting bail warrants interference when the case falls within the scope of further inquiry?
- Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 201, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 34, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 109, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 164, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 497(2), Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
' Petitioner Amanat Ali through the instant petition has sought for cancellation of post-arrest bail extended to respondents Nos.1 and 2 vide the order dated 23-7-2004 recorded by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Lahore in case F.I.R. No,70, dated 5-2-2003 under sections 302/ 201/34/109, P.P.C. Registered with Police Station Kahna, District Lahore.
2. Briefly the facts relevant for the disposal of the instant petition are that the aforesaid case has been registered on the statement of one Salamat Ali, who is said to be the brother of the petitioner.
3. He has alleged therein that on 5-2-2003 at about 1-30 a.m. Some unknown persons have committed the Qatl-e-Amd of his deceased father. The petitioner at one stage of the case was an accused in the same. Respondent No,2 had brought private complaint against him and his co- accused Sultan in respect of the said allegation. The petitioner, however, subsequently had managed to bring on the record the statement of one Rashid alias Sheeda under section 164, Cr.P.C. On the basis of which respondents Nos.1 and 2 were involved in the case.
4. These respondents had applied for post-arrest bail. The same was extended to them vide the afore-referred order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Lahore. The petitioner feeling himself aggrieved of his such exercise of discretion in their favor has come to this Court.
5. It has been argued on his behalf that sufficient incriminatory material has been brought on the record against these respondents and, hence, the bail was not justifiably granted to them.
6. I have considered the submissions made on his behalf and gone into the copies of the documents annexed to the petition.
7. The fact remains that none is named as an accused in the F.I.R. The names of the respondents Nos.1 and 2 have been introduced in the case on the basis of the aforesaid statement of Rashid alias Sheeda and prior to that the present petitioner and one Sultan were accused in the case and respondent No,2 Muhammad Latif had brought private complaint against them in respect of the allegation of the murder of the deceased. In view of this divergence in the pleas of the petitioner and the respondents Nos.1 and 2 in respect of the murder of the deceased, the learned Additional Sessions Judge was constrained to hold that they deserved bail. The learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to controvert the position that both the petitioner and the respondents Nos.1 and 2 have divergent pleas/versions in respect of the murder of the deceased. The same, therefore, has brought the case of these respondents within the purview of subsection (2) of section 497, Cr.P.C. Calling for further inquiry into their guilt. I am, therefore, clear in mind that the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Lahore has not at all erred in the exercise of his discretion in allowing them bail. The instant petition, thus, is devoid of any force and the same is dismissed in limine.