HAKAMZAAD vs THE STATE and another
The accused-petitioner filed a petition for post-arrest bail before the Peshawar High Court after his earlier bail applications were dismissed by the lower courts. The petitioner was implicated under sections 302/324/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 in a case arising from an FIR initially lodged against three unknown persons. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to bail where his nomination occurred through a belated supplementary statement recorded sixteen days after the incident without disclosing any source of information or valid explanation for the delay. The court held that the unexplained delay of sixteen days in recording the supplementary statement and the absence of direct ocular evidence rendered the petitioner's involvement questionable, making his case one of further inquiry. The court consequently allowed the petition and admitted the petitioner to bail. The key principle laid down is that involvement of an accused through a belated supplementary statement without disclosing the source of information or valid reasons for delay brings the case within the scope of further inquiry under section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, warranting the grant of bail.
- Whether an accused nominated through a belated supplementary statement without a disclosed source of information is entitled to post-arrest bail?
- Does an unexplained delay of sixteen days in recording a supplementary statement make the case one of further inquiry under criminal law?
- Can bail be granted when the initial FIR is lodged against unknown persons and subsequent implication lacks corroborative ocular evidence?
- Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 324, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 34, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
'ATTAULLAH KHAN, J.---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, P.P.C.
Vide F.I.R. 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 along with 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 F.I.R. Was lodged against three unknown persons. According to the learned counsel, it is on 4-1-2009 when the supplementary statement of the complainant was recorded in which she involved the present petitioner along with 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 F.I.R. Nobody is charged. The charge is against three unknown persons. The record further discloses that later on the supplementary statement the accused was charged along with 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 v. State 2009 P.Cr.LJ 474, in which it is held that:- "Not only the petitioner is named in the F.I.R. 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 know about accused during investigation, A 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 only), with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of Illaqa/Duty Judicial Magistrate.