MIAN KHAN vs THE STATE
This criminal petition concerns an application for post-arrest bail filed by the petitioner, Mian Khan, who sought release in a criminal case. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to the concession of bail under the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, given the nature of the evidence available against him. The petitioner contended that he was not named in the initial First Information Report and was only implicated later through the statements of two individuals, specifically an arms dealer and another person. Upon review, the Court noted that the State counsel and the investigating officer admitted there was no other evidence on record linking the petitioner to the alleged offense beyond the statement regarding the purchase of ammunition. Consequently, the Court held that the petitioner's case fell within the scope of further inquiry as contemplated by the relevant statutory provision. The petition was accepted, and the Court granted bail to the petitioner, establishing the principle that where the prosecution lacks sufficient evidence to establish a prima facie case, the accused is entitled to bail under the principle of further inquiry.
- Does the absence of evidence beyond a witness statement regarding the purchase of ammunition constitute a case of further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Is an accused entitled to bail when the prosecution admits there is no evidence on record other than statements from witnesses implicating the accused after the initial FIR?
- Section 497(2), Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
' KHAWAJA MUHAMMAD SHARIF, J.---It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that he was not named in the F.I.R. That he was named on 16-3-2006 through the statement of Nazir Ahmad Arms Dealer and one Abdul Majid and that case of petitioner is of further inquiry falling under subsection (2) of section 497, Cr.P.C.
2. Learned State counsel on the instructions of S.-I. Present in Court submits that there is no evidence on record. S.-I. Submits that Arms Dealer had stated that petitioner along with his co- accused had purchased 25 rounds from him. Both admit that there is no other evidence on record against the petitioner.
3. Heard. There is no evidence on record except the statement of Nazir Ahmad Arms Dealer and one Abdul Majid. In this view of the matter, I am of the considered is opinion that case of petitioner of further inquiry falling under subsection (2) of section 497, Cr.P.C. This petition is accepted and petitioner is allowed bail subject to his furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs,100,000 with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of Deputy Registrar (J) of this Court.