ADNAN vs THE STATE and anothers
This criminal petition concerns an application for post-arrest bail filed by the petitioner, Adnan, who was charged under Section 324 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 in connection with an FIR registered in 2007. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to bail given the absence of his name in the initial FIR, the lack of an identification parade, and the unexplained delay in his implication by the complainant. The Peshawar High Court held that the petitioner was entitled to bail, characterizing the case as one of further inquiry. The Court reasoned that the complainant's statement under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, recorded 28 days post-occurrence, failed to disclose the source of the complainant's satisfaction regarding the petitioner's involvement. Furthermore, the Court established the principle that mere absconsion, without corroborating evidence connecting the accused to the commission of the offense, is insufficient to deny bail. Consequently, the petition was allowed, and the petitioner was admitted to bail upon furnishing the required security bonds.
- Does the mere absconsion of an accused person, without other supporting evidence connecting them to the crime, justify the refusal of bail?
- Is bail appropriate when the initial FIR does not name the accused and no identification parade has been conducted?
- Can a statement recorded under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, which fails to disclose the source of the complainant's satisfaction regarding the accused's involvement, be sufficient to deny bail?
- Section 324, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 164, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
' ATTAULAH KHAN, Petitioner Adnan, who is charged in a case registered against him under section 324, P.P.C., vide F.I.R. No.301, dated 5-6-2007 in the Police Station Batagram, District Charsadda, has asked for his release on bail mainly on the grounds that he is not charged in the case; that subsequently he has been falsely implicated in the case; that he was abroad and after return he came to know about registration of the instant case against him and that there is neither any confession nor any ocular account or any other material connecting him with the commission of offence.
2. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State assisted by the learned counsel for the complainant by opposing the grant of bail to the accused/ petitioner contended that the petitioner remained fugitive from law for a considerable time which has not been explained by him and that the complainant after getting reliable information about involvement of the petitioner in the commission of offence, charged him and that the offence the petitioner is charged with attracts the prohibitory limb of section 497, Cr.P.C.
3. I have gone through the record carefully and considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties.
4. Perusal of the F.I.R. Reveals that none is charged by the complainant for the fire arm injuries sustained by him However, it is stated in the F.I.R. That" (flux {{URDU TEXT}} ) but despite that assertion no identification parade has been conducted by the prosecuting agency. A The complainant recorded his statement under section 164, Cr.P.C. On 3-7-2007 i.e. After 28 days of the occurrence. In the statement he has stated that "But now I am fully satisfied that accused Adnan son of Shahbaz r/o Nahqi has fired upon me with the intention to kill me with his .30 bore pistol, resultantly sustained injuries". In his statement he has not disclosed the source of satisfaction about involvement of the petitioner in the commission of offence. As regards abscondence of the petitioner, Suffice it to say that it is now well-settled that mere absconsion would not come in. The way of releasing 'an accused on bail unless such absconsion is supported by other material; evidence connecting him with the commission of offence. In nutshell, the facts that none is charged in the F.I.R., no identification parade qua guilt of the petitioner has been conducted so far and that no source of satisfaction regarding involvement of the petitioner' has been disclosed in the magisterial statement, would tilt the scales of justice in favour of grant of bail rather than jail as the petitioner's case is one of further enquiry.
5. For the reasons discussed above, this petition is allowed and the petitioner is admitted to bail provided he furnishes bail bonds in the sum of Rs. One lac, with two sureties, each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Illaqa/Judicial Magistrate who shall see that the sureties are local, reliable and men of means.