SHAHID ASLAM and another vs THE STATE
This matter arises from a bail petition filed on behalf of the petitioners seeking pre-arrest bail in a criminal case. The core legal question concerns whether the petitioners are entitled to pre-arrest bail where ineffective firing and a 'Lalkara' are attributed to them, and where subsequent statements implicating them in physical blows were introduced by the complainant with potential mala fides after law officers previously stated the petitioners were found innocent. The Lahore High Court held that the case falls within the purview of further inquiry under section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, noting that the belated introduction of witnesses by the complainant indicated a mala fide attempt at implication. The court confirmed the interim bail already granted to the petitioners, laying down the principle that where subsequent incriminating statements appear to be dishonest improvements and the case otherwise falls for further inquiry, pre-arrest bail is appropriately confirmed.
- Whether pre-arrest bail can be confirmed when subsequent witness statements implicating the accused are introduced belatedly with potential mala fides?
- Does a case where only ineffective firing and a Lalkara are initially attributed fall under the scope of further inquiry for bail purposes?
- Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
' KHAWAJA MUHAMMAD SHARIF, J.---This is second bail petition on behalf of the petitioners. Their earlier Crl. Misc. No,3926-B of 2007 was withdrawn from the Court of my learned brother Mian Muhammad Naj am-uz-Zaman, J, on 25-6-2007 where learned law officer submitted that both petitioners were found to be innocent.
2. In support of this petition learned counsel submits that occurrence took place on 9-5-2007, that there was no allegation in whole of the F.I.R., that petitioners gave kicks, blows on the person of deceased, that no injury is attributed to them, that only ineffective firing and "Lalkara" is attributed to them, that one of co-accused Tasleem-ul-Haq also received injuries on his person, that he was medically examined on the same day from D.H.Q. Sheikhupura and thereafter, he was referred to Mayo Hospital, Lahore, that complainant in order to make dishonest improvements produced two witnesses on 25-6-2007 before the Investigating Officer namely Adnan and Ashraf, who stated the petitioners gave kicks blows on the person of deceased and that case of the petitioner is one of further inquiry falling under sub-clause (2) of section 497, Cr.P.C.
3. On the other hand learned A.P.G. Assisted by learned counsel for the complainant submits that petitioners are named in the F.I.R., that according to the statements of two witnesses namely Adnan and Ashraf both the petitioners gave kicks blows on the person of the deceased and that it is not a case of bail before arrest.
4. Heard. In all there are four accused including the petitioners. Co-accused Tasleem-ul-Haq is real maternal uncle of the petitioners. According to the F.I.R. Tasleem-ul-Haq co-accused fired a shot with his pistol, which hit the deceased on the right side of his flank, then Rasheed Khan co-accused fired a shot which hit the deceased on back side of his right thigh and he fell down, thereafter, both the petitioners fired at the spot. On 25-6-2007 in Crl. Misc. No,3926-B of 2007 filed by the petitioners the learned law officer while appearing before my learned brother Mian Muhammad Najam-uz- Zaman, J. Submitted that both the petitioners were found to be innocent and they were not required by the police so on this learned counsel for the petitioners withdrew said bail petition and thereafter, on the same day, complainant produced two witnesses namely, Adnan and Ashraf before the Investigation Officer who stated that petitioners also gave kicks blows on the person of the deceased but this fact was not mentioned in whole of the F.I.R. Even Adnan and Ashraf P.Ws produced by the complainant on 25-6-2007 A were not eye-witnesses of the occurrence according to the F.I.R. No useful purpose can be served by cancelling the. Bail of the petitioners because if the bail after arrest can be allowed to the accused, then, bail before arrest can also be granted to the said accused. To my mind complainant with mala fide intention tried to implicate the petitioners in this case by producing two witnesses mentioned above. In this view of the matter interim bail already granted to the petitioners is hereby confirmed by accepting this petition, as their case falls within the purview of sub-clause (2) of section 497, Cr.P.C.