ZAFARULLAH vs THE STATE and another
This matter comes before the Lahore High Court through a bail petition filed by the petitioner, Zafarullah, seeking pre-trial or post-arrest relief in a criminal case. The core legal question concerns whether the petitioner is entitled to the concession of bail under subsection (2) of section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, given that no specific injury or motive is attributed to him, no recovery was effected from his possession, and he was found innocent during the police investigation despite being named in the First Information Report. The court holds that the petitioner's case falls within the scope of further inquiry under section 497(2), leading to the acceptance of the petition and the grant of bail subject to appropriate surety bonds. The key principle laid down is that where an accused person is not attributed any overt act, injury, motive, or recovery, and is declared innocent during investigation, his case reasonably falls for further inquiry, making him a fit subject for bail.
- Whether an accused not attributed any injury or motive is entitled to bail under section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Does a finding of innocence by the police during investigation form a valid ground for granting further inquiry bail?
- Is an accused named in a promptly lodged FIR disentitled to bail when no recovery is effected from him?
- Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 497(1), 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 no injury is attributed to the petitioner; that he has been found innocent during the course of investigation; that nothing has been recovered from him; 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 counsel for the complainant submits that petitioner is named in the promptly lodged F.I.R.; that he was present at the spot at the time of occurrence and common intention is there; that the offence falls within the prohibitory clause of section 497(1), Cr.P.C. And he is not entitled to bail.
3. Learned D.P.-G. Submits that petitioner has been found innocent during the course of investigation by the police.
4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. The complainant is father of deceased. Motive is not attributed to the petitioner and it was attributed to Muhammad Shafique co-accused who had caused fatal injury on the person of the deceased. There was a quarrel between the deceased and Shafique co-accused. No recovery has been effected from the petitioner and no injury is attributed to him. In this view of the matter, case of petitioner is of further inquiry falling under sub-clause (2) of section 497 Cr.P.C. This petition is accepted and 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.