NIAMAT ALI vs ALI MUHAMMAD alias MANGTA and others
This criminal petition was filed by the petitioner seeking the cancellation of post-arrest bail granted to the respondents by the Additional Sessions Judge, Lahore, in a case involving charges under Section 302, 201, 34, and 109 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the lower court exercised its discretion correctly in granting bail given the evidentiary circumstances. The case originated from an FIR naming unknown persons, with the respondents later implicated through a statement under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. Notably, the petitioner and the respondents held divergent versions of the murder, with the respondents having previously filed a private complaint against the petitioner. The High Court held that the existence of conflicting versions and the lack of initial naming in the FIR brought the case within the scope of further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. Consequently, the court dismissed the petition, affirming that the lower court's discretion to grant bail was soundly exercised.
- Does the existence of divergent versions of an incident between parties justify the grant of bail under the principle of further inquiry?
- Can bail be cancelled when the initial FIR does not name the accused and they are implicated later through subsequent statements?
- Is the discretion of a lower court in granting bail subject to interference when the case falls within the purview of further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- 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
ORDER
Petitioner Amanat Ali through the instant petition has sought for cancellation of post-arrest bail extended to Respondent Nos, 1 & 2 vide the order dated 23.7.2004 recorded by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Lahore in case FIR No, 70 dated 5.2.2003 under Section 302/201/34/109 PPC 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 Qatal-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 & 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 favour 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 FIR. The names of the Respondents Nos, 1 & 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 & 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 & 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 sub-section
(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 this discretion in allowing them bail. The instant petition, thus is devoid of any force and the same is dismissed in limine.