MUKHTAR AHMAD QADRI & another vs STATE and another
The petitioners sought post-arrest bail in case FIR No. 561 dated 23.10.2006 registered under Sections 302, 148, and 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 at Police Station Gaggo, District Vehari, on charges involving the abetment of qatl-i-amd. The core legal question was whether the petitioners were entitled to post-arrest bail given that they were not named in the initial FIR and their names only surfaced subsequently through a supplementary statement of the complainant without any overt acts or recoveries attributed to them. The Lahore High Court held that since the petitioners were not named in the FIR and the veracity of the explanation regarding the omission of their names as well as the question of their alleged abetment required determination after recording evidence, their case fell within the scope of further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. Consequently, the court accepted the petition and granted post-arrest bail to the petitioners subject to furnishing requisite security bonds.
- Whether an accused not named in the initial FIR but subsequently implicated through a supplementary statement is entitled to post-arrest bail as a case of further inquiry?
- Does the absence of any overt act or recovery from the accused justify the grant of bail under Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 148, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 149, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
Petitioners have moved this petition for their release on bail in case FIR No, 561 dated 23.10.2006 u/S. 302/148/149 PPC 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-amd 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 FIR. 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 FIR. 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.
5. 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 lank paper on the pretext of receiving dead body of the deceased from mortuary and they story as contained in the FIR was manoeuvered. He, therefore, was the principal accused who had engineered the crime. He co- petition 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.
6. The petitioners admittedly are not named in the FIR. 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 FIR and as to whether they had really abetted their co- accused to commit the murder shall be determined after recording of evidence.
7. 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.