MUKHTAR AHMAD QADRI and anther vs THE STATE and another
This matter arises from a bail petition filed by Mukhtar Ahmad Qadri and another seeking pre-trial release in connection with FIR No. 561 dated 23-10-2006 registered under sections 302, 148, and 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code at Police Station Gaggo, District Vehari, for the alleged abetment of the murder of Muhammad Hayat. The core legal question is whether the petitioners, who were not named in the initial FIR but implicated later through a supplementary statement without any overt acts assigned or recoveries made from them, are entitled to post-arrest bail. The Lahore High Court held that the case of the petitioners falls within the scope of further inquiry under the criminal procedure, given that their involvement and the validity of the complainant's explanation for omitting their names from the initial FIR require adjudication through recorded evidence. The court accordingly granted bail to the petitioners, laying down the principle that omission of names from the initial FIR coupled with a lack of specific overt acts or recoveries can make a case one of further inquiry warranting the grant of bail pending trial.
- Are accused persons entitled to bail when they are not named in the initial FIR and are implicated later through a supplementary statement without any overt acts assigned?
- Does the absence of recoveries from petitioners allegedly involved in abetment make their case one of further inquiry under criminal law?
- Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 148, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 149, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
' SAIF-UR-REHMAN, J.---Petitioners have moved this petition for their release on bail in case F.I.R.
No.561, dated 23-10-2006 under sections 302/148/149, P.P.C. Police Station Gaggo, District Vehari.
2. It is alleged that on abetment of Mukhtar Ahmad Qadri and Tariq Mahmood petitioners, their co- accused who were armed with fire weapons committed the Qatl-i-Amad of Muhammad Hayat husband of the complainant.
3. Heard. Record perused.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners 'submitted that petitioners were not named in the F.I.R. They were named subsequent to the registration of the case by the complainant through her supplementary statement by mentioning facts not consistent to the story in the F.I.R. Nothing was recovered from them. No overt act was assigned to them. It, therefore, was a case of further inquiry.
The petitioners, therefore, were entitled to bail.
4A. Opposing the petition learned DPG assisted by the learned counsel for the complainant submitted that the complainant was an illiterate lady. Mukhtar Ahmad Qadri petitioner No.1 was the main character who was mainly instrumental in the commission of murder of Muhammad Hayat. It was he who obtained thumb impressions of the complainant on blank paper on the pretext of receiving dead body of the deceased from mortuary and the story as contained in the F.I.R. Was manoeuvred. He, therefore, was the principal accused who had engineered the crime. His co- petitioner Tariq Mahmood had also similar role. Muhammad Hussain and Ghulam Rasool were still absconding. Sufficient material existed on record to believe that the petitioners were involved in the occurrence. Hence, they were not entitled to bail.
5. The petitioners admittedly are not named in the F.I.R., their names appeared on the scene, as having a hand in the commission of the occurrence, during supplementary statement of the complainant. The fact as to whether the explanation given by the complainant in connection with omission of names of the petitioners in the F.I.R. And as to whether they had really abetted their co- accused to commit the murder shall be A determined after recording of evidence.
6. This is found to be a case of further inquiry to the extent of the petitioners who are allowed bail subject to furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs.1,00,000 (one lac) with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of learned trial Court.