MUHAMMAD SHARIF vs THE STATE
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal filed by Muhammad Sharif against the orders of the Sessions Court and the High Court refusing him post-arrest bail in a murder case. The petitioner was specifically charged along with co-accused for the murder of Khushi Muhammad, having allegedly inflicted a soti blow in furtherance of common intention. The core legal questions involved whether a two-day delay in the FIR and conflicting statements gathered during re-investigation pointing towards another person constituted grounds for further inquiry warranting bail under criminal procedure. The Supreme Court held that the High Court was fully justified in refusing bail, as the petitioner was directly named in the FIR, supported by medical evidence and a challan submitted by the investigating officer. The key principle laid down is that where an accused is directly implicated by name in the FIR for a capital offence and challaned, minor discrepancies like delayed reporting and statements recorded during re-investigation favouring third parties do not automatically establish a case for further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
- Does a delay in lodging the first information report automatically entitle an accused to post-arrest bail in a murder case?
- Whether statements collected during a re-investigation pointing toward another person create a case for further inquiry when the petitioner is directly named in the FIR?
- Is an accused charged with an offence punishable with death or transportation for life entitled to bail when a challan has been submitted against him and he is directly implicated by the complainant?
- Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
1. ' ANWARUL HAQ, C J.-The petitioner along with two others, is facing prosecution for the murder of one Khushi Muhammad on the allegations that he, in furtherance of the common intention of all the three accused persons, inflicted a soti blow on the deceased, whereas his co-accused Muhammad Bashir gave a hatchet blow on the head of the deceased, which caused his death. The petitioner's applications for bail have been dismissed by the Sessions Court and the High Court.
2. ' Leave to appeal is sought on the grounds that there was a delay of two days in lodging the F. J. R.
3. Which has not been satisfactorily explained by the first informant ; and that during the course of re-investigation of the incident by the Deputy Superintendent of Police, several persons had stated that the real culprits were some other persons, and one Nazir Ahmad had, in fact, asserted that in his presence the deceased was injured by a stone thrown by one. Saeed Ahmad. The learned counsel contends that in these circumstances the High Court was in error in refusing bail, as this was clearly a case for further inquiry.
4. We do not see any merit in these submissions for the reason that even though there has been delay in reporting the incident, the petitioner is clearly named in the F. I. R. As being one of the assailants of the deceased. The medical evidence showed that the fatal injury was inflicted by a hatchet, and, accordingly, the statement alleged to have been made by one Nazir Ahmad before the Deputy Superintendent of Police that the deceased was injured by a stone thrown by one Saeed Ahmad would hardly benefit the petitioner. In view of the direct implication of the petitioner by the complainant and the fact that a challan has been submitted against him by the Investigating Officer, it was not possible for the High Court to arrive at the conclusion that there were no unreasonable grounds to believe that the petitioner was guilty of an offence punishable with death or transportation For life. We consider, therefore, that the High Court was justified in refusing bail ' The petition, accordingly, fails and is hereby dismissed. Petition dsimissed.