HAKAMZAAD vs STATE and another
This is a criminal petition filed by the accused-petitioner Hakamzad seeking post-arrest bail in case FIR No. 104 dated 19.12.2008 registered under Sections 302, 324, and 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code at Police Station Miryan, District Bannu. The core legal question revolves around whether the petitioner is entitled to post-arrest bail when he was not nominated in the initial FIR, but was instead implicated through a highly belated supplementary statement recorded after sixteen days without disclosing any source of information. The Peshawar High Court held that the unexplained delay of sixteen days in recording the supplementary statement and the absence of any ocular evidence or source of information render the case of the petitioner one of further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The court laid down the principle that unexplained delay in implicating an accused through a supplementary statement without disclosing the source of information makes the involvement doubtful and establishes a case for further inquiry, warranting the grant of bail.
- Whether an accused implicated through a belated supplementary statement without a disclosed source of information makes out a case for further inquiry?
- Does the absence of the accused's name in the initial FIR justify the grant of post-arrest bail?
- Whether an unexplained delay of sixteen days in recording a supplementary statement can lead to the possibility of false implication of the accused?
- Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 324, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 34, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
The accused-petitioner Hakamzad son of Karjan applied for bail in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, Bannu and Additional Sessions Judge-II, Bannu but could not succeed. Now the petitioner has filed petition for bail in this Court. He is charged under Sections 302/324/34 PPC vide FIR No, 104 dated 19.12.2008 registered at Police Station Miryan, District Bannu.
2. The brief facts are that Mst. Athar Jana reported to the police in civil hospital, Bannu that on 19.12.2008 she alongwith her brother Sher Qadir and Habibullah had gone for treatment to Jani Khel and thereafter they were on their way to home. At about 1400 hours, they noticed a motorcar in which three persons duly armed with Kalashnikovs were present. They started firing with which her brother Sher Qadir and Habibullah were hit and she escaped. The accused after the occurrence decamped. Both the injured succumbed to the injuries. In the report, the complainant could not identify the accused. This report was made on 19.12.2008.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner is not charged in the report by the complainant. Initially the FIR was lodged against three unknown persons. According to the learned counsel, it is on 04.01.2009 when the supplementary statement of the complainant was recorded in which she involved the present petitioner alongwith two other co-accused. Learned counsel further contended that even in the supplementary statement recorded on 19.12.2008 the accused-petitioner has not been nominated. The charge against the petitioner is highly suspicious and is at very belated stage. About 16 days have been consumed in consultations and deliberations and thereafter the accused was charged.
4. Learned Deputy Advocate General opposed the bail petition.
5. I have gone through the record.
6. In the FIR nobody is charged. The charge is against three unknown persons. The record further discloses that later on in the supplementary statement the accused was charged alongwith other two accused. The record further shows that about 16 days were spent in deliberations, therefore, false implication of the accused cannot be ruled out. Even there is no ocular evidence against the petitioner to connect him with the offence. He was involved in the supplementary statement in which no good ground has been given as to why the petitioner is charged at such a belated stage.
No source of information has been disclosed in the supplementary statement. Reliance may be placed on Mehmood Ahmad. Vs. State (2009 Cr.L.J 474) in which it is held that:-- "Not only the petitioner is named in the FIR and he has been involved in this case on the basis of supplementary statement which is also silent with regard to any source through which the complainant had come to now about accused during investigation, the petitioner has also been declared innocent. In this backdrop of the matter, this petition is allowed."
7. Keeping in view the above principle and circumstances of the case, the case of the petitioner is of further inquiry. No purpose would be served if he is kept in further custody. Accordingly, this petition is allowed and the petitioner is admitted to bail on furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs, 1,00,000/- (Rupees one lac) with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of Illaqa/Duty Judicial Magistrate.