Shaukat And Another vs The State
This matter concerns a petition for post-arrest bail filed by two accused persons, Shaukat Hussain and Ghulam Murtaza, in connection with F.I.R. No. 115/2007 registered under Sections 457, 380, and 392 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the petitioners were entitled to bail given the significant inconsistencies between the initial F.I.R. and the complainant's subsequent supplementary statement. The court observed that the F.I.R. was lodged with an inordinate delay of 13 to 14 days and contained allegations of theft involving specific named individuals. However, a later supplementary statement introduced a new narrative of robbery by unknown persons, relying on evidence from foot trackers. The court held that these material contradictions rendered the prosecution's case one of further inquiry. Furthermore, the reliance on foot tracker evidence was characterized as a weak form of proof. Consequently, the court accepted the bail application, ruling that the petitioners' guilt required further investigation, and admitted them to post-arrest bail subject to the furnishing of bail bonds.
- Does a material inconsistency between the initial F.I.R. and a subsequent supplementary statement entitle an accused to post-arrest bail?
- Is the evidence of foot trackers considered sufficient to deny bail in a criminal case?
- Does an inordinate delay in lodging an F.I.R. constitute a ground for further inquiry in bail proceedings?
- Section 457, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 380, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 392, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER HASNAT AHMAD KHAN, J.
Shaukat Hussain and Ghulam Murtaza petitioners, seek post-arrest bail in case F I R. No. 115/2007, dated 3.4.2007 registered at Police Station, Tibba Sultanpur, District Vehari, in respect of offences under Sections 457/380/392, P.P.C.
2. Petitioners were booked in the above- mentioned case on the allegation of committing theft at night time. During the investigation the complainant took a somersault and got his supplementary statement recorded wherein he alleged that on the night of occurrence some unknown burglars had barged Into his house and jobbed him of cash of Rs. 55,000/-. On the basis of said supplementary statement offences under Sections 457 and 380, P.P.C. ' were deleted and instead offence under Section 392, P.P.C. Was substituted.
3. After hearing the parties and going through the record I have straightaway noticed that the F.I.R.
In this case was lodged with an inordinate delay of 13/14 days. I have further noticed that in the F.I.R: it was alleged by the complainant that on the night of occurrence, four persons including the petitioners had committed theft of Rs. 350/-. It was further alleged in the F.I.R. That the complainant had' seen the accused nominated in the F.I.R. While running away from the place of occurrence, however, after ten days of the lodging the F I R. The complainant made a supplementary statement wherein it was alleged that some unknown accused had committed the offence of robbery after barging into the house of the complainant. It was further alleged that the complainant and his sister-in-law were roughed up by the robbers. In the said supplementary statement he went on to narrate that-after the occurrence, the services of foot trackers were hired and on the basis of said evidence the petitioners were involved in this case. As there is a seaming inconsistency between the F.I.R. And the supplementary statement, the case of the petitioners has become as that of further inquiry. Besides, according to the supplementary statement the petitioners were not identified by the complainant rather they were implicated in this case on the basis of evidence of foot trackers, which is a weak type of evidence. Be that as it may, a case of further inquiry into the guilt of the petitioners has been made out, to say the least. Consequently, the application in hand is accepted and the petitioners are admitted to post-arrest bail subject to their, furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rupees one lac) with one surety each in the like amount to the' satisfaction of the learned Trial Court.