MUHAMMAD NASIR vs STATE and anoher
The petitioner sought post-arrest bail in case FIR No. 311/07 registered under Sections 302, 324, and 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 at Police Station Kot Samaba, District Rahimyar Khan. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to post-arrest bail when his name was not mentioned in the initial FIR, was subsequently nominated in a supplementary statement, but was later declared innocent by the police during investigation and found to have no tangible evidence against him. The Lahore High Court held that since the petitioner was declared innocent by the police, no evidence was available on the file, and he was no longer required for further investigation, his continued detention in jail would amount to punishment before trial. The court ruled that the case fell within the scope of further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 and accordingly admitted the petitioner to post-arrest bail.
- Whether an accused person not named in the initial FIR but nominated in a supplementary statement is entitled to post-arrest bail when declared innocent by the police during investigation?
- Does continued detention in jail constitute punishment before trial when no tangible evidence is available on the file against the accused?
- When does a criminal case qualify as one of further inquiry for the grant of post-arrest bail?
- Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 324, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 34, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
Petitioner seeks post arrest bail in case FIR No, 311/07 dated 24.7.2007 under Sections 302/324/34 PPC registered at Police Station Kot Samaba, District Rahinlyar Khan, at the instance of one Farooq Ahmad, in which it is admitted that petitioner's name is not mentioned; that in the supplementary statement made by the complainant on 5.8.2007 the petitioner and one Shaukat Ali were nominated. During the investigation said Shaukat Ali has been discharged and regarding the petitioner the eye-witnesses/real brother of the deceased has also made statement that petitioner is innocent, and in fact he is not a real culprit. It is also stated that during the investigation nothing has been recovered from the petitioner and petitioner is in judicial lock up since 26.8.2007. It is further stated that after involvement of the petitioner and one Shaukat Ali, two other accused were nominated through another supplementary statement namely, Ghulam Hussain and Abdul Jabbar. According to the I.O. one Abdul Jabbar nominated through second supplementary statement has been died and said Ghulam Hussain has been involved in this case. It is further stated that regarding petitioner there is no evidence available on the file.
2. Learned Deputy Prosecutor General after examining the record, verified the facts that through Zimini No, 14 the police has declared the petitioner innocent and even there is no tangible evidence available on the file.
3. I have heard that learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record with their able assistance. It is admitted that petitioner's name is not mentioned in the FIR on the record that through supplementary statement one Shaukat Ali and petitioner were involved in this case but later on during the investigation witnesses made the statement that petitioner is innocent and other co-accused Shaukat Ali was discharged from the offence. The police on the basis of evidence also declared the petitioner innocent but he was not discharged from the offence and he is in judicial lock up since 26.8.2007. The detention of the petitioner in jail is punishment before trial, which is not mandate of law. The petitioner is not required for further investigation. As the petitioner has been declared innocent by the police and no evidence is available on the file, prima facie, it is a case of further inquiry to the extent of petitioner. So, he is allowed post arrest bail subject to his furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs, One lac with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court.