Khalit Ahmad vs The State
The petitioner Khalil Ahmad sought post-arrest bail in case F.I.R. No. 361/2006 registered under Sections 302/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code at Police Station Sabazpir, District Sialkot, concerning the murder of Asif. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to post-arrest bail considering that he was not named in the initial FIR and was only implicated through a belated supplementary statement four days later, alongside deferred arrest proceedings and questionable recovery evidence. The Lahore High Court accepted the petition and granted bail to the petitioner, holding that the evidentiary value of the belated supplementary statement requires evaluation by the trial court, particularly given that the injured victim initially stated the assailants were unknown despite the parties being from the same village, and that the recovery of a weapon without a matching crime empty does not conclusively link the petitioner to the crime at the pre-trial stage. The key principle laid down is that unexplained delay in implicating an accused via a supplementary statement, coupled with deferred arrest and tenuous recovery evidence, constitutes a case for further inquiry under criminal jurisprudence.
- Whether post-arrest bail can be granted when the accused is not named in the initial FIR and is implicated through a belated supplementary statement?
- What is the evidentiary significance of a supplementary statement recorded several days after the incident when the parties are from the same village?
- Does the recovery of a weapon without a matching crime empty from the spot warrant withholding post-arrest bail in a murder case?
- Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code
- Section 34, Pakistan Penal Code
- Section 161, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER ORDER .
M.A. ZAFAR, J. - Khalil Ahmad petitioner seeks post-arrest bail in case F.I.R. No. 361/2006, dated 20.9.2006 for the offence under Sections 302/34, P.P.C, registered with Police Station Sabazpir District Sialkot at the instance of Muhammad Yousaf complainant.
2. According to the F.I.R, complainant's younger brother Asif was running on oil agency at brink of the road and said Asif used to sleep at the rooftop of the shop. On 20.9.2006 at 2.00 a.m. On the hue and cry of his brother, complainant attracted at the shop and found his brother smeared with blood, who told him that four unknown persons armed with deadly weapons fired two shots at him, which hit him below chest on right side of the belly. During the process of shifting the injured Asif to Civil Hospital, Sialkot, he succumbed to the injured.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that no one is named in the F.I.R, as an accused, complainant made a supplementary statement on 23.9.2006 naming the petitioner and' one Ehsan, followed by another supplementary statement dated 5.10.2006 naming Nazarn and Ashfaq. it is further submitted that petitioner and his other co-accused, who were allegedly named in the supplementary statement, were interrogated but their arrest as deferred. .
4. Learned D.P.G, submits that complainant, Muhammad Amin and Irfan PWs in their statements under section 161, Cr.P.C, have fully implicated the petitioner with he commission of offence, which is supported by the proceeding of track dogs. He further submits that petitioner, as found guilty during the course of investigation.
5. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record, it is clear that petitioner is not named in the F.I.R., he was involved only in a supplementary statement made by the complainant after four days of the occurrence. Evidentiary value of the alleged supplementary statement will be considered by. The learned Trial Court after recording the evidence, particularly, when complainant own saying in the F.I.R, that injured told him that he was injured by four unknown accused persons. Parties are resident of the same village and there is force in the arguments of learned counsel for the petitioner that they being resident of the same village are well-known to each other. Petitioner was arrested in this case on 1.8.3.2008 although his arrest was deferred by the investigator vide Zimni No. 9, dated 17.10.2006 till further investigation, even today the position is the same, which was on 17.10.2006. Mere recovery of 30-bore pistol from the possession of the petitioner may not be a much help to the prosecution-when no crime empty was recovered from the spot.
6. For the forgoing reasons, this petition is accepted and petitioner is allowed bail subject to his furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs. 2,00,000/- (two lac) with one surety in the like-amount to the satisfaction of learned Trial Court.