AKHTAR ALI vs STATE and another
This is a criminal petition for post-arrest bail arising from FIR No. 267/09 registered at Police Station Dera Rahim, District Sahiwal. The core legal question involves determining whether the petitioner is entitled to bail under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, given the delayed FIR, material contradictions in the supplementary statements, and the repudiation of incriminating police statements by a key witness through a sworn affidavit. The Lahore High Court held that the petitioner has successfully made out a case for further inquiry into his guilt. The court established the principle that where statements attributed to witnesses during investigation are disowned and retracted via sworn affidavits and where the prosecution's narrative suffers from material discrepancies and lack of direct evidence, a case for further probe is made out, warranting the grant of post-arrest bail.
- Whether the petitioner is entitled to post-arrest bail under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 when further probe into his guilt is required?
- What is the legal effect when a material witness disowns a statement recorded under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 through a sworn affidavit?
- Section 22-A, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 22-B, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 161, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 497(2), Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
Akhtar Ali, the present petitioner is in the judicial lock up for the last 08 months for FIR No, 267/09, registered with Police Station Dera Rahim, District Sahiwal, dated 24.07.2009, on the verbal complaint of one Hameed Masih, wherein he complained that on 12.06.2009, approximately 1 month and 10 days before lodging of the FIR, his daughter Rabia and niece Shagufta went out of the house to get themselves eased but one Parveen and Nikquial made them abducted with the help of one Binyamin and James Masih, who got them boarded on a car. Allegedly the said abductees at the time of decamping from the house took even the gold ornaments cash amount and some clothes.
Admittedly one of the abductee Rabia came home one her own on 05.08.2009 pertaining to which the complainant made a written supplementary statement before the police on 06.08.2009 citing the information extended to him by the daughter Rabia, whereby the story of FIR was altogether changed as the only accused woman Parveen came to their house and got them out upto a road, where a car was parked and five persons including one lady Rehana were boarding the car who allegedly abducted both of them. The story further went on to describe that two persons named Mangta and Hanif de-boarded from the car in failed to collect any direct or indirect evidence against the petitioner during the course of investigation up-till now. Even if the statement of Mst.
Asifa, which she denies to have made, is taken into consideration it hardly creates any incriminating evidence against the petitioner as no date, time and place has been mentioned by her as to when, where & how the consultation for hatching up a conspiracy had taken place nor it discloses the names of the person who had been allegedly marshaled by the petitioner to commit the murder of both the deceased. Asifa Bibi appeared before the learned Ex-Officio Justice of Peace by way of an application u/S. 22-A/22-B Cr.P.C. with the contention that her statement had been fabricated by the Investigation Officer u/S. 161 Cr.P.C. during the course of investigation which should be discarded from the investigation file and that the above said Investigation Officer might be proceeded against according to law. Asifa Bibi who is present in person has submitted her sworn affidavit to the same fact making the deposition that she had neither joined the investigation nor had made any statement before the I.0 against the petitioner or anybody-else. So far as the circumstances of this case, at the moment are concerned, the petitioner has made out a case for grant of bail within the meanings of Section 497(2) Cr.P.C. as further probe is required to look into his guilt.
7. For the foregoing reasons, I accept this application and admit the petitioner to post arrest bail provided he furnishes bail bonds in the sum of Rs, 1,00,000/- with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of learned trial Court.