WAZEER ALI And Another vs THE STATE
This matter concerns a bail application filed by two police constables accused of murder and related offenses under the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the applicants were entitled to post-arrest bail despite being named in a supplementary statement recorded nineteen hours after the registration of the First Information Report (FIR). The FIR itself was lodged eighteen hours after the incident, yet failed to name the applicants, despite the presence of eyewitnesses from the same neighborhood. The Court held that the significant delay in lodging the FIR, coupled with the failure to identify the applicants therein, created sufficient doubt regarding their involvement at the pre-trial stage. Consequently, the Court granted bail, holding that the mere subsequent naming of accused persons in a supplementary statement is insufficient to deny bail when the initial FIR, lodged after a substantial delay, omits their names. The Court emphasized that the actual involvement of the accused must be established through evidence recorded during the trial, rather than mere allegations at the bail stage.
- Does a significant delay in lodging an FIR without naming the accused entitle the accused to bail?
- Can bail be denied solely based on a supplementary statement naming the accused recorded after the FIR?
- Is the failure to name accused persons in an FIR lodged eighteen hours after the incident a ground for granting bail?
- Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 324, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 337-H(2), Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 452, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 34, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
1. ORDER FAISAL ARAB, J.---Granted subject to all just exceptions.
2. Applicants are booked in Crime No.26/10 of P. S. Airport under sections 302, 324 337-H(2), 452, 34, P.P.C.
2. Learned counsel for the applicants argued that the present applicants were not named in the F.I.R.
3. But after 19 hours of the registration of F.I.R. a supplementary statement was made implicating four persons by name including the present applicants. In support of his contentions he relied upon the cases reported as 1987 SCMR 1906, PLD 1996 Karachi 397, 1998 SCMR 1528, PLJ 1999 SC 49, 2000 PCr.LJ 1204, 2000 PCr.LJ 1209, 2001 SCMR 14, 2002 PCr.LJ 791, 2003 SCMR 426, 2005 MLD 1470, 2007 SCMR 482 and 2009 SCMR 1210.
4. Learned counsel for the complainant on the other hand argued that both the applicants are police constables and they were also relatives of the persons on whose behest the murder has been committed and they were identified by the eye-witnesses of the incident. He argued that the duty sheet of both the constables shows that they were deployed at night time whereas one of the statements of the police functionary shows that they were deployed at day time and in this manner the applicants being police functionary have been supported by the police officials so that it can be established that they were not involved in the commission of the crime. He also argued that the challan was submitted on 14-4-2010 but still the investigation continued and statements of the witnesses have been recorded on 6-8-2010, which was an afterthought to improve the case of the present applicants and these statements could have been recorded earlier prior to the submission of challan. He submitted that the incident took place on 19th March, 2010 but the police submitted the challan before the trial Court in April, 2010 and they were shown absconders therefore, they are not entitled for grant of bail. In support of his contentions he relied upon the cases reported as 2000 PCr.LJ 1253, 2002 SCMR 1886, 1999 SCMR 1794; 1996 SCMR 555, 2000 SCMR 1758 and PLD 1996 FSC 1.
5. Learned Assistant Prosecutor-General for the State adopted the arguments of the complainant's counsel and prayed for rejection of bail application.
6. There can be a situation when incident took place at night time and person is unable to recognize the previously known persons who have committed the crime but the F.I.R. Narrates that at the time of incident the people of the area gathered and they witnessed the incident. Had the F.I.R. Been lodged immediately after the incident it was understandable that at that time it was not disclosed to the complainant as to who were the persons involved in the murder, but in this case F.I.R. Was lodged about lapse of 18 hours then by that time why it did not become known to the complainant as to who were the persons who committed murder when the eyewitnesses were of the same neighbourhood. It is not argued that since the accused were police functionary therefore, the person who registered the F J.R. Favoured them by not recording the names of the accused. It is an admitted position that even after 18 hours the names of the applicants were not mentioned as to be the persons who committed the crime and in this background at bail granting stage, bail cannot be denied for the reason that the eye-witnesses A have later disclosed to the complainant that the applicants were the persons who committed the crime. This does not mean that the applicants were not involved in the crime but their involvement can be established only after the evidence of the eye-witnesses is recorded. At this stage the applicants have made out a case for grant of bail.
7. In the circumstances, the applicants are granted bail subject to their furnishing solvent surety in the sum of Rs.500,000 each and P.R Bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of learned trial Court.
8. The Bail Application stands allowed in the above terms.