RAFAQAT ALI vs THE STATE
This matter arises from a criminal petition for post-arrest bail filed by Rafaqat Ali against the State. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to bail where the F.I.R. was lodged with a delay, the petitioner was not named in the F.I.R. but in a belated supplementary statement, no recovery was effected from him, and no Chemical Examiner's report supported the allegation of administering poisoned water. The Lahore High Court accepted the petition and held that the case against the petitioner fell within the scope of further inquiry under subsection (2) of section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The key principle laid down is that where material evidence linking the accused to the crime is absent during the investigation stage, particularly regarding delayed supplementary statements and unverified chemical allegations, the accused is entitled to the concession of post-arrest bail under the purview of further inquiry.
- Whether an accused not named in the F.I.R. but implicated in a belated supplementary statement is entitled to bail when no recovery is effected?
- Does the absence of a Chemical Examiner's report regarding an alleged poisoning bring the case within the scope of further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Section 497(2), Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
KHAWAJA MUHAMMAD SHARIF, J.-Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that F.I.R, was lodged on 3-3-2006 while occurrence , had taken place on 25-1-2006; that he was not named in the F.I.R.; that he was named in the supplementary statement which was recorded on 4-3-2006; that petitioner is brother-in-law of the deceased; that according to F.I.R, there was one injury on the person of deceased and thereafter a board was constituted according to which six injuries were found on the dead body of the deceased; that no recovery was effected from him and that case of petitioner is of further inquiry.
2. On the other hand learned State counsel submits that in two investigations the Investigating Officer had come to the conclusion that petitioner is left on the mercy of the Court; that son of the deceased had made a statement after two months of the occurrence that he had seen the petitioner while giving poisoned water to the deceased but admits that there is no evidence on record.
3. Heard. Though the case was registered 1 month and 7 days after the occurrence but the petitioner is not named in the F.I.R. Supplementary statement of the complainant was recorded after two months of the occurrence. I have gone through the statement of son of the deceased that he had seen the petitioner while giving poisoned water to the deceased but there is no report of Chemical Examiner in this regard. Nothing was recovered from the petitioner. In this view of the matter, in my considered opinion, case against the petitioner is 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.
Cited by 2 cases
- MUHAMMAD NAWAZ alias DOCTOR vs The STATE 2014 YLR 1924
- MUHAMMAD IJAZ vs THE STATE 2009 P Cr. L J 1310