MUHAMMAD ASHRAF vs THE STATE
This matter comes before the Lahore High Court through a bail petition filed by Muhammad Ashraf seeking post-arrest bail in a criminal case. The core legal question concerns whether the petitioner is entitled to bail given the delayed registration of the F.I.R., the discrepancy in naming the petitioner which was rectified via a supplementary statement without disclosing the source of information, and the absence of any recovery from the petitioner despite physical remand. The court held that under the circumstances, the petitioner made out a case for further inquiry under subsection (2) of section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. Consequently, the petition was allowed, and the petitioner was admitted to bail subject to furnishing appropriate security bonds. The key principle laid down is that where the correctness of the name in the F.I.R. is questionable due to a lack of disclosed sources in a supplementary statement and no recovery is effected during remand, the case falls within the scope of further inquiry warranting the grant of bail.
- Whether a petitioner is entitled to bail when their correct name is brought on record through a supplementary statement without disclosing the source of information?
- Does the absence of any recovery from an accused during physical remand make the case one of further inquiry under subsection (2) of section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Is bail to be granted when the circumstances of the case point towards a tentative assessment favoring further inquiry into the guilt of the accused?
- Section 497(2), Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
' KHAWAJA MUHAMMAD SHARIF, J.--- Learned counsel for the petitioner, in support of this bail petition contends that the petitioner has falsely been involved in this case; that there is a delay of 16 hours in lodging the F.I.R., petitioner was not named no recovery was effected; that the case of the petitioner is one of further inquiry and that the petitioner is entitled to the concession of bail.
2. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State submits that the petitioner was named in the F.I.R., his name was corrected on the same day through a supplementary statement but admitted that no recovery was effected from him.
3. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, have given consideration to the submissions made at the bar and have also gone through the record.
4. Correct name of the petitioner has not been mentioned in the F.I.R. Which was brought on record through a supplementary statement although on the same day but no source of information has been mentioned. Although he remained on physical remand for nine days yet no recovery was effected from him. In the afore-referred circumstances, this Court is of the prima facie view that the petitioner has made out a case falling under subsection (2) to section 497, Cr.P.C. And is entitled to the concession of bail. Resultantly, this petition is allowed and the petitioner is admitted to bail provided he furnishes bail bonds in the sum of Rs,1,00,000 each with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Deputy Registrar (Judicial) of this Court.