NABASSAL AHMED vs THE STATE
This matter concerns a petition for post-arrest bail filed by the petitioner, Nabassal Ahmed, who was implicated in a criminal case following a supplementary statement by the complainant. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to the concession of bail under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, given that he was not named in the initial First Information Report and that there appeared to be a discrepancy between the ocular account and the medical evidence. The Court observed that while four accused were originally named, two were later declared innocent during the investigation, and the petitioner was subsequently implicated with specific roles. Crucially, the Court noted that the medical report indicated only one injury on the deceased, creating a contradiction with the prosecution's ocular account. Holding that the petitioner's case fell within the scope of further inquiry, the Court granted the bail petition. The key principle established is that where a significant contradiction exists between the ocular evidence and the medical report, a case for further inquiry is made out, justifying the grant of bail under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898.
- Does a contradiction between the ocular account and the medical evidence regarding the number of injuries constitute grounds for further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Is an accused person entitled to bail when they were not named in the initial First Information Report but were implicated later via a supplementary statement?
- 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 is innocent and has falsely been involved in this case; that the petitioner was not named in the F.I.R. But was named in the supplementary statement made by the complainant on 16-1-2006; that in the F.I.R. Four accused were named amongst whom two, namely Nasir and Hakeem were found innocent during the course of investigation by the police and in their place petitioner Nabassal and Ahmad Raza were implicated; that the recovery has been planted on them; that the case of the petitioner is one of further inquiry falling under subsection (2) to section 497 Cr.P.C. And that the petitioner is entitled to the concession of ball by this Court.
2. On the other hand, Mr. Naseeruddin Khan Nayyar, the learned Additional Prosecutor-General, while appearing on behalf of the State, submits that the petitioner and his co-accused were made accused although through a supplementary statements but on the same day and with specific roles and that the petitioner is not entitled to the discretionary relief of bail from this Court.
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. Four accused persons, namely, Hakim, Nasir, Dilawar Shah and Muhammad Zubair were named in the F.I.R., Nasir and Hakim were declared innocent during investigation and against them the complainant made a supplementary statement allegedly on the same day and implicated the petitioner and one Ahmad Raza in their place attributing specific roles. One injury each has been attributed to the accused on the person of the deceased. The petitioner was not named in the F.I.R.
According to the MLR there is only one injury on the person of the deceased, so, there is a contradiction in ocular account and the medical evidence. In the afore-referred circumstances and without going into the merits of the case lest it may prejudice case of either side, 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 with one surety in the like amount to. The satisfaction of the Deputy Registrar (Judicial) of this Court.