GHULAM GHOUS vs THE STATE
This criminal petition concerns an application for post-arrest bail filed by the petitioner, Ghulam Ghous, who was implicated in a case involving robbery and house trespass under sections 354 and 459 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to bail given that he was not named in the initial F.I.R. but was subsequently implicated through a belated supplementary statement, and considering his age. The Lahore High Court observed that no specific role was attributed to the petitioner in the F.I.R., and the subsequent supplementary statement, which contradicted the initial narrative, lacked sufficient evidentiary value at the pre-trial stage. Furthermore, the court noted that the petitioner, being approximately thirteen years old, fell under the protective proviso of section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. Consequently, the court held that the petitioner's case warranted further inquiry and granted post-arrest bail. The key principle laid down is that a belated supplementary statement, which introduces a version inconsistent with the initial F.I.R., may render a case one of further inquiry, justifying the grant of bail, especially when the accused is a minor.
- Does a belated supplementary statement that contradicts the initial F.I.R. make a case one of further inquiry for the purpose of bail?
- Is a minor accused entitled to the benefit of the proviso to section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Can bail be granted when the accused is not named in the F.I.R. and no specific role is attributed to them?
- Section 354, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 459, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 161, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 173, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
' HAFIZ ABDUL REHMAN ANSARI, J.-Through this petition, the petitioner, namely, Ghulam Ghous son of Sultan seeks post-arrest bail in case F.I.R. No. 139/2009 dated 16-4-2009 registered at Police Station Mittroo, Vehari, under sections 354 and 459, P.P.C, on the complaint of Muhammad Sajjid- complainant.
2. Briefly facts as narrated in the F.I.R, are that petitioner allegedly committed robbery and caused hurt while lurking house trespass along with other co- accused. Hence, this case.
3. Petitioner's counsel submits that in the instant case, complainant, Muhammad Sajjid and his wife, namely, Asifa are injured and were medically examined, Muhammad Arshad and Tanveer are the eye-witnesses; that specific role is attributed to Farooq, Waseem and Mst. Hanifan Bibi not to the petitioner; that the complainant submitted another application to the S.H.O, on the basis of belated supplementary statement petitioner is implicated in the case; that belated and subsequent statement by which the petitioner is implicated makes the case one of further inquiry.
The story narrated in the F.I.R, is different from the story of belated statement. Eye-witnesses in their statements under section 161, Cr.P.C., have also not implicated the petitioner witnesses of the F.I.R, recorded their statement prior to the supplementary statement of the complainant, that there is no statement of the injured P.W. Asifa on the file which connects the petitioner with the occurrence and the challan/report under section 173, Cr.P.C, is submitted to the trial Court wherein injured, Asifa is not placed as P.W; that the petitioner is the child of near about 13 years his case fall under proviso of section 497, Cr.P.C., that plea of complainant that on account of injuries caused to the complainant he could not mentioned the petitioner in the' F.I.R. Perusal of the medical evidence reveals that there is no such injury on the body of complainant which made him unconscious on account of which he could not mention the name of the petitioner in the F.I.R.; that petitioner is behind the bars since 8-5-2009. He contends that petitioner is entitled for the concession of bail.
4. Learned Deputy District Public Prosecutor assisted b^ the learned complainant vehemently opposes the grant of bail on the ground that petitioner is nominated in the case on the basis of supplementary statement on 2-6-2009 and he remains for 7 days in hospital. Pistol was recovered from the petitioner.
5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the record.
6. No specific role is attributed to the petitioner in the F.I.R, no injury of injured P.W. Of the complainant is attributed to the petitioner. Petitioner was implicated through supplementary statement/ application which was submitted to S:H.O., which is belated statement which have no evidentiary value; that the petitioner is impleaded through this belated statement in which quite different version is narrated than that in the F.I.R, which makes the case of the petitioner of further injury; that no doubt pistol was recovered. In F.I.R., it is no where mentioned that petitioner made any fire from the pistol; that the recovery was of no use for the prosecution case when no role is attributed to the petitioner; that challan of the case and report under section 173, Cr.P.C, submitted before the trial Court, as such, he is no more required for investigation and for any recovery, petitioner is entitled for grant of bail. There is delay of 2 days in lodging the F.I.R., false implication of the petitioner cannot be ruled out; No doubt offence falls within the Prohibitory Clause but the case of the petitioner is covered under proviso of section 497, Cr.P.C., being under sixteen years of age.
7. Resultantly this petition is accepted and the petitioner is admitted to post-arrest bail subject to his furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court. However, it is made clear that the observations made above are of tentative nature, will not prejudice the merits of the case.