SHAHID IQBAL and others vs THE STATE
This matter concerns a petition for confirmation of pre-arrest bail filed by several accused persons facing criminal charges. The core legal question was whether the petitioners were entitled to the confirmation of interim bail, given the findings of the police investigation and contradictions between the medical evidence and the First Information Report (F.I.R.). The court held that the petitioners were entitled to bail, confirming the interim bail previously granted. The ratio of the decision rests on the principle that where the police investigation finds specific accused persons innocent, and where medical evidence contradicts the allegations in the F.I.R.—specifically regarding the nature of injuries and the roles attributed to the accused—the case falls within the scope of further inquiry. The court emphasized that no innocent person should be sent to jail, particularly when the prosecution's narrative is undermined by objective evidence such as post-mortem reports and the investigation's conclusion that certain accused persons committed no overt acts. Consequently, the court confirmed the bail, treating the matter as a case of further inquiry under the relevant statutory provisions.
- Does a case fall under the category of 'further inquiry' when medical evidence contradicts the allegations in the F.I.R.?
- Can pre-arrest bail be confirmed when the police investigation has declared the accused innocent?
- Is the presence of an accused at the crime scene without an overt act sufficient grounds to deny bail?
- Section 497(2), Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
' KHAWAJA MUHAMMAD SHARIF, J.---In continuation of my order dated 7-6-2006 and 8-6-2006 learned counsel for the petitioners adds that Riaz and Shahbaz petitioners have been found innocent during the course of investigation, that story of abetment has been found to be incorrect, that injury attributed to Shahid is an exit wound, that allegation against Shahbaz was that he caused Danda blow on the person of the deceased but' according to post-mortem report there is no such injury on the person of the deceased, that Riaz petitioner is accused of ineffective firing while Muhammad Anwar petitioner is accused of abetment and that case of all the petitioners is one of further inquiry falling under subsection (2) of section 497, Cr.P.C. So interim bail already granted to them may be confirmed.
2. On the other hand, learned counsel for the complainant submits that petitioners are named in the F.I.R. With specific roles, that seven crime empties of .44 bore were recovered from the spot, that this is a bail before arrest and considerations for the grant of bail before arrest and after arrest are totally different because recoveries are yet to be effected from the petitioners.
3. Investigating Officer present in Court submits that Riaz and Shahbaz have been found innocent, that story of abetment against Anwar and two others has been found to be false, that in fact Anwar was present at the spot but no overt act is attributed to him.
4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. On 8-6-2006 while granting bail before arrest to the present petitioners I had dismissed the application of Azam, main accused in limine and he was taken into custody. Now I take up the case of present petitioners. The injury attributed to Shahid is found to be an exit wound and this fact has not been denied by learned counsel for the complainant but submits that he raised "Lalkara" and thereafter he also fired in the air, Shahbaz petitioner was attributed Danda blow on the person of the deceased but according to post- mortem report there is no such injury and the police also found him innocent. Moreover, Shahbaz petitioner is also minor and his date of birth is 25-7-1989. Riaz petitioner was accused of ineffective firing but the police also found him innocent during the course of investigation. Anwar petitioner was accused of abetment but story of abetment was found to be false and incorrect by the police and it had been submitted by the 'Investigating Officer that he was present at the spot but without any overt act. Five accused are named in the F.I.R. And three have been shown to be abettor, so in all there are eight accused in this case. All the petitioners are blood relations and closely related inter se. .
' After having heard learned counsel for the parties, I am cognizant of the fact that this is a bail before arrest but I have also to say that no innocent person should be sent to Jail. Medical, evidence contradicts the story given in the F.I.R. Coupled with the fact the innocence of Riaz, Shahbaz and Anwar, as I have mentioned above, the role attributed to Shahid has been negated by the post-mortem report of the deceased. For one injury eight persons of the same family have been roped in this case. In this view of the matter and treating it a case of further inquiry falling under subsection (2) of section 497, Cr.P.C. Interim bail already granted to the petitioners is hereby confirmed by accepting this petition.