SHAHID MASIH vs THE STATE and another
This matter arises from a criminal petition seeking post-arrest bail filed by Shahid Masih against the State. The core legal question is whether the petitioner is entitled to post-arrest bail under section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, given that he was not named in the initial first information report, was implicated only through a belated supplementary statement, and was assigned no specific injuries, placing him on a better footing than a co-accused already granted bail. The Lahore High Court accepted the petition and held that the petitioner's case falls within the scope of further inquiry under section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The key principle laid down is that where an accused is implicated through a delayed supplementary statement without any attribution of injuries, and a co-accused with a similar or worse role has been admitted to bail, the accused establishes a case of further inquiry and is entitled to the concession of post-arrest bail.
- Whether an accused not named in the F.I.R. and implicated only in a belated supplementary statement without attribution of injury is entitled to post-arrest bail?
- Does the grant of bail to a co-accused provide a ground for releasing another accused on the rule of consistency?
- When does a criminal case fall under the category of further inquiry under section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Section 497(2), Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
'KHAWAJA MUHAMMAD SHARIF, C.J.---It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that petitioner is not named in the F.I.R.; that he was named in the supplementary statement which was recorded on 29-1-2009; that the petitioner was arrested on 22-6-2009; that Arshad co-accused who was named in the F.I.R. And was accused of ineffective firing was granted bail vide order dated 7-9-2009 passed in Criminal Miscellaneous No,10580-B of 2009 by my learned brother Mian Muhammad Najam-uz-Zaman, J. (as he then was); that case of petitioner is of further inquiry falling under sub-clause (2) of section 497 Cr.P.C. And he is entitled to bail.
2. Learned DPG submits that petitioner is named in the supplementary statement but concedes that no injury on the person of the deceased or the P.W., is attributed to him.
3. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. Petitioner is not named in the F.I.R. He was named in the supplementary statement which was recorded on 29-1-2009 i.e, about two months after the occurrence. No injury is attributed to him. His case is on much better footing to that of his co- accused Arshad who had been allowed bail by this Court. In this view of the matter, case of the petitioner is of further inquiry falling under sub-clause (2) of section 497 Cr.P.C. This petition is accepted and the petitioner is allowed bail subject to his furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs,100,000 (one lac) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of Deputy Registrar (J.) of this Court.