MEHFOOZ SHAH vs STATE and another
This matter concerns a post-arrest bail application filed by the petitioner, who was implicated in a murder case registered under Sections 324, 147, 149, and 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the petitioner, who was not named in the initial FIR but was subsequently implicated via a supplementary statement recorded after a delay, was entitled to bail. The petitioner argued that his inclusion was a mala fide act and that his role was not specific, while the complainant opposed the bail citing the recovery of a weapon and the gravity of the offence. The Court held that the omission of the petitioner's name from the initial FIR, combined with the delay in recording the supplementary statement, rendered the petitioner's involvement a matter of further inquiry. Consequently, the Court granted post-arrest bail, establishing the principle that a belated inclusion of an accused in a supplementary statement, particularly when the name was absent from the initial FIR, warrants the grant of bail pending further investigation.
- Does the inclusion of an accused in a supplementary statement after a delay, when they were not named in the initial FIR, constitute a case for further inquiry?
- Is an accused entitled to bail when their name is absent from the initial FIR and only added later?
- Does the recovery of a weapon from an accused, whose name was added in a delayed supplementary statement, automatically preclude the grant of bail?
- Section 324, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 147, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 149, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
This is an application for grant of post-arrest bail in case FIR No, 20, dated 10.1.2010, registered under Sections 324, 147, 149 and 302 PPC, at Police Station Hazro, District Attock.
2. Contents of the FIR reveal that on the day of occurrence the complainant along with his father and uncle was present at home. The petitioner armed with club, along with four co-accused armed with clubs and hatchets came there and called the complainant and others. The moment, the complainant, his uncle and father came out of the house, the said accused attacked them with their respective weapons. In result of the injuries received by father of the complainant, he died in the hospital on the next day of the occurrence.
3, It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is not named in the FIR and as such no specific role is attributed to him. He further contends that the petitioner was roped in this case on the basis of the supplementary statement made by the complainant on 10.1.2010.
The fatal injuries are attributed to Amanat Shah and Faisal. He also contends that recovery of hatchet from the petitioner is doubtful and it is a mala fide of the complainant to involve the petitioner in the instant case through his supplementary statement. It is argued that the petitioner has been behind the bars for about four months. The challan of the case has already been submitted. His person is no more required for the investigation purpose. Lastly, in view of the contentions raised above, the learned counsel prays for grant of bail to the petitioner.
3. The learned Law Officer opts to remain absent from the proceedings, however, Sheikh Kamran Shahzad, Advocate appearing on behalf of learned counsel for the complainant has vehemently opposed this petition on the ground that the petitioner has been nominated by the complainant in his supplementary statement got recorded on the same day. The hatchet has been recovered from possession of the petitioner and above all the alleged offence falls within the Prohibitory Clause of Section 497 Cr.P.C. So he prays for dismissal of this bail petition.
4. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned counsel appearing on behalf of learned counsel for the complainant and have also perused the record. It has been noted that the name of the petitioner does not figure in the FIR. His name has been included in consequence of the supplementary statement made by the complainant on 10.1.2010, wherein it has been stated that at the time of lodging of the FIR, he was in a confused state of mind. It is also notable that in case of a scuffle or fight between the numerous people sometimes details of the injuries may be missing but the name of an accused never escapes from the memory of witness or complainant. The inclusion, of the name of the present petitioner .through a supplementary statement made after elapse of a complete day makes case of the petitioner one of further inquiry.
5. For what has been discussed above, this petition is allowed and the petitioner is admitted to post-arrest bail subject to his furnishing bail bonds in the sum of RS. 200,000/- (rupees two lacs) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court.