KAMRAN AHMED vs THE STATE
This matter arises from a bail application filed by Kamran Ahmed seeking post-arrest bail in a case concerning the murder of Tariq Hafeez, registered via an F.I.R. against unknown culprits at Shara-e-Faisal Police Station. The core legal question involves the evaluation of delayed statements of eyewitnesses recorded under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 when the accused was not nominated in the F.I.R. The Sindh High Court held that where eyewitness statements implicating the accused were recorded more than six months after the incident without their presence being noted in the F.I.R. and lacking proper procedural formalities, the case falls within the scope of further inquiry under the criminal procedure law. Consequently, the court admitted the applicant to post-arrest bail, laying down the principle that unexplained delay in recording eyewitness statements and lack of initial nomination in the F.I.R. can tilt the case toward further inquiry for the grant of bail.
- Whether an unnominated accused is entitled to bail when eyewitness statements under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 are recorded after a significant delay?
- Does the recording of statements under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 after more than six months of the incident constitute a case of further inquiry for the purpose of bail?
- Can a bail application be granted when the names of alleged eyewitnesses do not appear in the initial F.I.R.?
- Section 164, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
1. ' S.A. RABBANI, J.---Granted subject to all just exceptions.
2. F.I.R. In this case was lodged by one Arif Hafeez at Shara-e-Faisal Police Station, reporting murder of his brother Tariq Hafeez. The F.I.R.Was registered against unknown culprits. The case has been sent up for trial before 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Karachi (East). During the investigation, statement of one Usman Ali was recorded, under section 164, Cr.P.C., who claimed to be eye- witness and he stated that he saw applicant Kamran holding the deceased. The Investigating Officer also got recorded statement of one Mst. Chan Zeb, under section 164, Cr.P.C., who also claimed to be eye-witness of the incident. This statement was recorded on 18-10-2001, after more than six months of the incident.
2. ' Mr. Aamir Mansoob Qureshi, counsel for the applicant, submitted that the accused/applicant has not been nominated in the F.I.R. And the statements of alleged eye-witnesses under section 164, Cr.P.C. Were recorded after more than six months of the incident and the names of these witnesses were not mentioned in the F.I.R.
3. ' Mr. M.R. Syed, counsel for the complainant, submitted that there arc two eye-witnesses whose statements under section 164, Cr.P.C. Have been recorded and their version of those statements has not been challenged by way of cross-examination. The copies of statements of these witnesses recorded under section 164, Cr.P.C. Do not mention that they were recorded in presence of the accused/applicant and these statements even do not bear the signatures of the Magistrate.
4. ' Mr. Fazal-ur-Rahman Awan, State counsel, opposes the bail pleaon the ground that two alleged eye-witnesses have implicated the applicant.
5. The prosecution is relying upon the statements of two eyewitnesses mentioned above, recorded under section 164, Cr.P.C., but it was no mentioned in the F.I.R. That they were present at the scene of offence. These.Versions are yet to be subjected to cross-examination at the trial. In these circumstances this is a case of further inquiry. The applicant is admitted to bail subject to surety in the sum of Rs,200,000 (Rupees two hundred thousand) and PR bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court.