RIAZ AHMAD and another vs STATE and another
This matter concerns a petition for post-arrest bail filed by Riaz Ahmad and Basharat, who were implicated in a criminal case registered under Sections 302, 324, 109, and 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the petitioners were entitled to bail given the conflicting evidence regarding their specific roles and presence at the scene of the crime. The complainant's initial FIR alleged that the petitioners had merely instigated the principal accused, Dawood, to commit the murders, explicitly stating that no other accused was identifiable at the scene. However, subsequent statements under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 attempted to implicate one of the petitioners in the actual firing. The Court held that the contradiction between the FIR and the subsequent witness statement created a prima facie case requiring further inquiry. Consequently, the Court admitted the petitioners to bail, establishing the principle that where material discrepancies exist between the initial FIR and subsequent witness accounts regarding an accused's presence and role, the case warrants further inquiry, justifying the grant of bail.
- Does a contradiction between the initial FIR and a subsequent witness statement regarding the presence of an accused at the crime scene justify a grant of bail?
- When does a criminal case qualify for 'further inquiry' under the law of bail?
- Can an accused be granted bail if the initial FIR only alleges instigation while subsequent statements attempt to place them at the scene of the crime?
- Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 324, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 109, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 34, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 161, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
Petitioners Riaz Ahmad and Basharat seek bail after arrest in case FIR. No, 155/2007 dated 3.5.2007 under Sections 302, 324, 109, 34 PPC registered at Police Station Kameer District Sahiwal.
2. Precisely, the specific role as per FIR attributed by the complainant is that petitioners along with Sajjad had instigated the principal accused Dawood to kill his father and brother.
3. It is contended that petitioners are behind the bars for more than one year. It is further submitted that petitioners have no reason or object or motive to instigate Dawood co-accused to kill his real father and brother.
4. On the other hand, learned DPG assisted by learned counsel for the complainant contends that Mst. Shamas Tahira daughter of the deceased and sister of the complainant and Dawood co- accused under Section 161 Cr.P.C. categorically stated' that Basharat petitioner caused fire-arm injury to the deceased. It is further added that complainant has also filed a complaint against the present petitioners in which the petitioners have been summoned.
5. I have considered the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties.
6. Complainant has given every detail of the incident in the FIR in which he categorically stated that apart from Dawood- no other accused was identifiable. He specifically named the present petitioners that they had advised Dawood co-accused to kill the deceased. Meaning A thereby that, prima facie, it appears that statement of Mst. Shamas Tahira was recorded to implicate Basharat petitioner in the' actual occurrence whereas according to the complainant he was not present. In this view of the matter, case of the petitioners requires further inquiry. They are accordingly admitted to bail subject to their furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs, 1,00,000/- (Rupees one hundred thousand only) each with one surety each in the like amount to the