SHAFIQURREHMAN vs THE STATE and another
This matter concerns a post-arrest bail application filed by the petitioner, who was accused of committing sodomy alongside co-accused persons. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to bail given that he was not nominated in the initial F.I.R., which was lodged after a delay of approximately nine and a half hours, and was only implicated through a subsequent supplementary statement that substituted him for another individual previously named. The Court held that the omission of the petitioner's name from the F.I.R., despite his status as a next-door neighbor to the victim, created significant doubt regarding his involvement. The Court emphasized that a supplementary statement cannot be equated with an F.I.R. and that the substitution of the accused cast doubt on the prosecution's case. The key principle laid down is that even at the bail stage, the slightest doubt regarding the prosecution's version of events must be resolved in favor of the accused, necessitating further inquiry into the allegations.
- Can a supplementary statement be equated with an F.I.R. for the purpose of implicating an accused?
- Does the omission of an accused's name from an F.I.R. lodged after a significant delay entitle the accused to bail?
- Should the benefit of the doubt regarding the prosecution's version be extended to an accused at the bail stage?
ORDER
' RAUF AHMAD SHEIKH, J.---The allegation against the petitioner is that he along with his co- accused persons subjected the complainant to sodomy.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the F.I.R. Was recorded on the written application of the complainant, which was submitted after about 9,1/2 hours of the occurrence but the name of the petitioner did not appear in the same and he has been roped in the false case through supplementary statement allegedly made on the next day, whereby the petitioner was substituted for Muhammad Ashraf with malice as Muhammad Ashraf had prevailed upon the complainant. It is contended that the petitioner is next door neighbourer of the complainant and had he been involved in the commission of the offence, the complainant would have nominated him in the F.I.R., which was lodged after elapse of more than 9 hours of the alleged occurrence. It is, thus, contended that the involvement of the petitioner is doubtful and he is entitled to the concession of bail. In this respect reliance is placed on . Muhammad Ilyas v. The State (2010 PCr.LJ 1782). It is stated that the supplementary statement does not carry the value of F.I.R. And cannot be equated with it. In this respect reliance is placed on Noor Muhammad v. State 2008 SCM R 1556 and Ghulam Abbas v. The State 2004 YLR 3166.
3. Learned counsel for the complainant and learned DPG have vehemently opposed the petition. It is urged that the petitioner and his co-accused had committed the offence but due to embarrassm ent and confusion, his name could not be mentioned in the F.I.R. It is urged that the MLR and the report of the Chemical Examiner prove the commission of the offence and the P.Ws.
Have supported the prosecution version so the petitioner is not entitled to the concession of bail.
4. The petitioner is not nominated in the F.I.R., which was lodged after about 9 hours of the occurrence. It is not denied that the petitioner is the next door neighbourer of the complainant/victim, who is student of 11th class. His omission to mention the name of the petitioner in the F.I.R., therefore, gives rise to many questions and the allegation against the petitioner clearly needs further probe and inquiry. The supplementary statement recorded on the next day cannot be equated with the F.I.R. In any manner. The substitution of the petitioner for Muhammad Ashraf originally nominated in the F.I.R. Casts doubt regarding involvement of the petitioner in the commission of the alleged offence. It is an established law that the slightest doubt regarding prosecution version is to be resolved in favour of the accused even at bail stage.
5. For the reasons supra, the petitioner is admitted to post-arrest bail subject to his furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs,1,00,000 (Rupees one lac) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court.
6. Nevertheless the above observations are tentative in nature and will have no bearing on the merits of the case.