QURBAN ALI alias JUDGE vs THE STATE
This post-arrest bail application arose from Crime Report No. 604 registered under Sections 392/109, PPC, involving an armed robbery of Rs. 19,90,000 from a vehicle. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to post-arrest bail where he was not named in the First Information Report (FIR), no recovery was made from him, and his involvement was based solely on a supplementary statement made 34 days after the incident without explaining the source of information. The Lahore High Court held that the supplementary statement without corroboration or explanation was insufficient to establish a direct link between the petitioner and the crime. Furthermore, no independent witness deposed against him and no stolen property was recovered from his possession. The Court laid down the principle that an uncorroborated supplementary statement recorded after significant delay without disclosing the basis of knowledge creates a case of further inquiry under Section 497(2), Cr.P.C. Consequently, the High Court allowed the petition and granted post-arrest bail subject to furnishing bail bonds.
- Whether the nomination of an accused in a delayed supplementary statement without explaining the source of knowledge entitles the accused to bail on the ground of further inquiry?
- Whether the absence of recovery and independent witness testimony against an accused not named in the FIR constitutes sufficient grounds for post-arrest bail?
- Section 392, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 109, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
Qurban Ali alias Judge, petitioner seeks his post-arrest bail in Crime Report No,604, dated 10-11- 2003 under sections 392/109, P.P.C., registered with Police Station Bhiki, District Sheikhupura.
2. Facts in brief are that on 10-11-2003 at about 4-30 p.m. Muhammad Hanif, cashier and Bin Yamin, driver of Suzuki Van were fetching an amount of Rs,19,90,000 from Lahore which was to be disbursed to the labourers. When they reached between Shehzad Textile Mills and Silver Fibre Mills, three motorcyclists chased them. One of them made two successive shots at the vehicle. They stopped motorcycle right in front of the vehicle and carried away the said amount on pistol point.
Suzuki Van was also taken away.
3. Razzak and Mushtaq could be apprehended by the police within a short span of time but the money had been taken away by Amir Ali who is still absconding. Petitioner along with two others namely Karamat and Aslam was subsequently introduced as accused at the instance of the complainant on the basis of supplementary statement made by him on 14-12-2003. Karamat and Aslam have not been captured so far.
4. Petitioner instituted his post-arrest bail application before the learned Sessions Judge, Sheikhupura who entrusted the same to a learned Additional Sessions Judge for its disposal in accordance with law. The said Additional Sessions Judge after fullest evaluation of facts and circumstances of the case proceeded to decline him the desired relief through his order dated 23- 2-2004. Hence this petition.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner vigorously argues that name of the petitioner is. Not mentioned in the F.I.R. The police badly failed to collect evidence against him to prove the allegation of abetment. He has never been accused of a criminal act in the past and that during days of occurrence he was serving in Ijaz Spinning Mills, Kharian Wala.
6. Learned counsel for the State submits that none appeared before the police to depose against the petitioner and in this way case against him is not sound.
7. Both the sides have been heard at length. Admittedly name of the petitioner does not figure in the first information report. He was arrested in this case on the basis of a supplementary statement of the complainant made by him after about 34 days of occurrence. Contents of statement of the complainant do not depict the way he came to know regarding culpability of the petitioner. This statement is hardly sufficient to link him with the commission of crime imputed to him. No other person came forward to say a word against the petitioner. No recovery could be made from him. I am of the firm view that accusations brought against him necessitate further inquiry. Accordingly by accepting this petition I order release of the petitioner on bail subject to his furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs,50,000 (fifty thousand) with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of trial Court.
Cited by 1 case
- PAARI vs THE STATE 2005 MLD 779