FALAK SHER vs THE STATE
This matter arose from a petition seeking post-arrest bail for an accused implicated in a murder case. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to bail under the rule of further inquiry, despite being named in the First Information Report (FIR) and placed in Column No. 3 of the challan. The petitioner argued false implication and asserted that another co-accused committed the murder, while the prosecution contended that the petitioner caused a vital injury to the abdomen of the deceased and was implicated by an injured eyewitness. The Lahore High Court dismissed the petition, holding that because the petitioner was found guilty during the police investigation, placed in Column No. 3 of the challan, and accused of causing a specific injury to the deceased's abdomen, the offence fell within the prohibitory clause of Section 497(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The court established that post-arrest bail cannot be granted where there is direct implication by injured eyewitnesses and the offence falls within the statutory prohibitory clause.
- Whether an accused placed in Column No. 3 of the challan is entitled to bail under the rule of further inquiry when a specific injury to a vital organ is attributed to him?
- Does the statement of an injured eyewitness implicating the accused under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 disentitle the accused to post-arrest bail?
- Can bail be granted where the offence falls within the prohibitory clause of Section 497(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 and the police investigation finds the accused guilty?
- Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 497(1), Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 497(2), Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 173, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 161, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
1. ' KHAWAJA MUHAMMAD SHARIF, J.---Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case; that in fact according to finding of the police he was present in the "Mela" which was being held in the village; that there is substantial evidence in favour of the petitioner; that in fact murder was committed by Matloob Hussain who was arrested by the police; that no recovery was effected from him and that case of petitioner is of further inquiry falling under subsection 2 of section 497, Cr.P.C.
2. ' On the other hand, learned State counsel assisted by learned counsel for the complainant submits that petitioner is named in the F.I.R.; that he had caused injury on the abdomen of the deceased; that there are injuries on the person of injured P.Ws. Who had supported the case of prosecution; that he had been placed in Column No,3 of the challan and that offence falls within the prohibitory clause of section 497(1), Cr.P.C.
3. Heard, I have gone through the report under section 173, Cr.P.C. With the assistance of learned counsel for the petitioner. The petitioner was found guilty in this case. He had been placed in Column No,3 of the challan. He had caused injury on the abdomen of the deceased. According to F.I.R. And specially statement made by Arif injured P.W. Under section 161 he had implicated the petitioner in this case. Offence falls within the prohibitory clause of section 497(1), Cr.P.C. In this view of the matter no ground for bail is made out. This petition is dismissed.