GUL HASSAN vs THE STATE
This matter concerns a bail application filed by the applicant, who was implicated in FIR No. 37 of 2008 registered at Police Station Kazi Ahmed for offenses under sections 302, 324, 337-H(i), 148, and 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the applicant was entitled to post-arrest bail given that he was placed in Column No. 2 of the challan by the investigating authority, despite being named in the FIR. The applicant argued that the conflicting versions of the complainant and independent witnesses, combined with the investigating officer's finding that there was no material to connect him to the crime, necessitated further inquiry. The Court held that the applicant was entitled to bail. The ratio of the decision is that when an accused is placed in Column No. 2 of the challan, it creates a case of further inquiry under the law, thereby entitling the accused to the concession of bail. The Court consequently allowed the application, subject to the furnishing of surety and a personal recognizance bond.
- Does the placement of an accused in Column No. 2 of the challan entitle them to the concession of bail?
- Is a case for further inquiry made out when the investigating authority finds no material to connect an accused to the crime?
- Can an accused be granted bail when there are conflicting versions between the complainant and independent eye-witnesses?
- Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 324, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 337-H(i), Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 148, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 149, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
1. ' FAISAL ARAB, J.---The applicant is named as one of accused in F.I.R/Crime No,37 of 2008 under sections 302,324, 337-H(i), 148, 149, P.P.C. Registered with Police Station Kazi Ahmed.
2. ' Learned counsel for the applicant states that by reading the contents of complainant in the F.I.R.
3. And the statement of other witnesses to the incident i.e, Driver of the Van and Cleaner, it becomes apparent that there is a conflict with regard to the versions stated by the complainant and the other independent eye-witnesses and further more it also creates doubt as to whether complainant himself was as an eye-witness of the incident. He further contends that there were two investigations. In the first investigation, the applicant was implicated in the commission of crime but in the second investigation his name was placed in Column No,2 of the challan which shows that investigation authority has not found any martial against the applicant to connect him with the crime. He also relied on the cases reported as 1982 SCM R 440, 1987 SCM R 1721, 1998 SCM R 1452 and 1992 SCM R 1857, wherein it is stated that when the accused is placed in Column No,2 of the challan then he is entitled for concession of bail that there are two reasons for placing a person in Column No,2. The first reason is that when a person is found innocent and the second reason is that at the investigation stage there may not be any material but subsequently in evidence a person may be found guilty and therefore, he is placed in Column No,2. However, he contends that even in the second situation since person's connection with the crime depends upon further evidence, which becomes a case of further inquiry.
4. Keeping in view the principles laid down in the above mentioned judgments and the fact that applicant has been placed in Column No,2 by the Investigating Authority, a case for further inquiry is made out and the applicant become entitled A for grant of bail. Resultantly, this application is allowed and the applicant shall be released on bail subject to his furnishing surety in the sum of Rs,200,000 (Two lac) and P.R. Bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court.
Cited by 1 case
- RASOOL BUX Versus State 2017 YLRN 131