MUHAMMAD AZEEM vs THE STATE
This is a criminal petition filed by Muhammad Azeem seeking post-arrest bail in case F.I.R. No. 486 registered under sections 302 and 392 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question revolves around whether the petitioner's case falls within the scope of further inquiry under subsection (2) of section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, given that he was not nominated in the FIR, his name surfaced through a hearsay supplementary statement without a test identification parade, and firearm allegations were not established during the investigation. The Lahore High Court accepted the petition and granted post-arrest bail to the petitioner, holding that the lack of direct incriminating evidence, the reliance on a hearsay supplementary statement, the absence of an identification parade, and the petitioner's status as a child under the Juvenile Justice System Ordinance 2000 warranted further inquiry into his guilt under section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898.
- Whether the absence of a test identification parade and reliance on a hearsay supplementary statement makes a case fit for further inquiry under section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Can bail be granted to an accused whose name surfaced through a belated supplementary statement without disclosing the source of knowledge?
- Does the lack of recovery of weapon from the physical possession of the accused justify the grant of post-arrest bail?
- Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 392, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 173, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Juvenile Justice System Ordinance, 2000
ORDER
' ASIF SAEED KHAN KHOSA, J . ---Through this petition Muhammad Azeem petitioner has sought post-arrest bail in case F.I.R. No,486 registered at Police Station, Sadar Farooq Abad, District Sheikhupura on 11-12-2005 in respect of offences under sections 302 and 392, P.P.C.
2. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and going through the record it has been noticed by me that according to the F.I.R. The culprits perpetrating the alleged offences had remained unknown and unidentified at the spot. It, has further been noticed by me that the petitioner had not been nominated in the FIR. In any capacity whatsoever and his name had surfaced in this case for the first time through a supplementary statement made by the complainant. A perusal of the said supplementary statement of the complainant shows that sometime after lodging the F.I.R. The complainant had come to know about the petitioner's involvement in the alleged offences but the complainant had failed to disclose or divulge in that statement the source of his knowledge in that regard and, thus, the said statement was apparently hit by the rule against hearsay evidence. It is admitted at all hands that no test identification parade has been held in this case so as to positively incriminate the petitioner. The petitioner allegedly confessed his guilt before the police during his custody but the evidentiary value of such a confession is next to nothing. The pistol allegedly recovered in this case had not been secured from the petitioner's physical possession and apparently there is nothing available on the record to connect the recovered pistol with the alleged offences. It has been argued by the learned counsel for the complainant as well as the learned counsel for the State that the petitioner had pointed out the place where he had thrown the snatched away motorcycle but the learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn my attention to the Memorandum of Recovery of the motorcycle and according to the same the said motorcycle had been recovered from the place of occurrence itself and not from any other place pointed out by the petitioner. The investigation of this case has already been finalized and a perusal of the report submitted under section 173, Cr.P.C. Shows that during the investigation the allegation against the petitioner regarding firing at the deceased had not been established. It is not disputed that the petitioner has already been declared to be a 'child' within the purview of the Juvenile Justice system Ordinance, 2000 and a challan against him has been ordered to be submitted before a Juvenile Court. The petitioner had no antecedents or credentials of being a thief, robber or dacoit prior to registration of the present criminal case.
3. For what has been discussed above the case against the petitioner calls for further inquiry into his guilt within the purview of subsection (2) of section 497, Cr.P.C. This petition is, therefore, allowed and the petitioner is admitted to bail subject to furnishing bail bond in the sum of Rs,50,000 (Rupees fifty thousand only) c with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial court.