ATIF ABBAS vs THE STATE
This matter arises from a criminal petition filed before the Lahore High Court seeking post-arrest bail for the petitioner, Atif Abbas, who was implicated in a case involving firing at a deceased and an injured person. The core legal question concerns 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 police investigation found him performing official duties elsewhere at the relevant time and placed him in column No. 2 of the challan as innocent. The Court held that since the investigation established the petitioner's absence from the spot and presence at his office during the incident, his continued incarceration was unwarranted and his case warranted further inquiry. Consequently, the petition was accepted and bail was granted to the petitioner subject to furnishing surety bonds. The key principle laid down is that where police investigation declares an accused innocent due to alibi and places them in column No. 2 of the challan, their case squarely attracts the provisions for further inquiry under bail jurisprudence, entitling them to release on bail.
- Does a case fall under further inquiry for the purpose of bail when the police investigation finds the accused to be on official duty at the time of the occurrence?
- Whether an accused placed in column No. 2 of the challan as innocent is entitled to the grant of bail?
- Is bail to be granted when the State counsel fails to rebut contentions regarding the petitioner's innocence established during investigation?
- Section 497(2), Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
' KHAWAJA, MUHAMMAD SHARIF, J.---It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that this Court had granted bail to Muhammad Arshad co-accused in Criminal Miscellaneous No. 1774-B of 2006 vide order, dated 31-3-2006; that case of petitioner is on similar footing to that of his co- accused Muhammad Arshad; that he was Computer operator in Punjab Provincial Building Department at Faisalabad and remained on his duty from 8-30 a.m. To 1-30 p.m.; that his senior and colleagues have sworn their affidavits and verified this fact before the police; that police came to the conclusion that he was present on his duty from 8-30 a.m. To 1-30 p.m. ; that he was found to be innocent and placed in column No.2 of the challan; that no recovery was effected from him and that case of petitioner is of further inquiry falling under subsection (2) of section 497, Cr.P.C.
2. Learned State counsel is not in a position to rebut the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner and concedes that these facts have been mentioned by the police during the course of investigation.
3. Heard. It is correct that according to F.I.R. The petitioner along with his co-accused fired at the deceased and injured Abdul Ghaffar but later on it has come on record that he was not present at the spot. He was present on his duty from 8-30 a.m. To 1-30 p.m. His senior and colleagues have sworn their affidavits to the police in this respect and the police came to the conclusion that petitioner was present in his office on the fateful day. He was declared innocent and has been placed in column No. 2 of the challan. Column No.2 is meant for those accused persons who are not challaned or who were absconding so the petitioner has not been challaned. The settled law is that when the Court comes to the conclusion that case of accused is of further inquiry, he shall be released on bail. Reliance is placed upon PLD 1989 SC 585 and PLD 1995 SC 34. In this view of the matter, I am of the considered opinion that case of 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.