ASAD ULLAH vs STATE and another
This is a petition for post-arrest bail in a criminal case involving charges under Section 302/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The petitioner sought bail on the grounds that he was not nominated in the initial FIR, was implicated only through a supplementary statement recorded one year after the incident, and that the complainant had provided inconsistent versions of events by filing and subsequently withdrawing a private complaint against other individuals. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to bail given the delay in his implication and the contradictory stances taken by the complainant. The Court held that the petitioner was entitled to bail, noting that the complainant's inconsistent versions rendered the case one of further inquiry. Furthermore, the Court emphasized that the lack of substantial progress in the trial meant the petitioner could not be detained indefinitely, as this would amount to pre-trial punishment. Consequently, the petition was allowed, and the petitioner was granted post-arrest bail subject to furnishing bail bonds.
- Does the implication of an accused in a supplementary statement recorded one year after the FIR constitute grounds for further inquiry?
- Can an accused be denied bail when the complainant has provided multiple inconsistent versions of the occurrence?
- Is prolonged detention without substantial progress in the trial a valid ground for granting post-arrest bail?
- Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 34, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
Petitioner seeks post arrest bail in case FIR No, 7/2010 dated 5.1.2010 under Section 302/34 PPC Police Station Gagoo, District Vehari.
2. It is argued by learned counsel that petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case on the basis of supplementary statement of the complainant recorded after about one year of the lodging of the FIR, otherwise, the petitioner neither participated in the occurrence nor had been nominated in the FIR. It is further contended by the learned counsel that regarding the same occurrence the complainant also filed a private complaint against Muhammad Yar, Mazhar, Anwar and Sadiq but subsequently withdrew the same, as such, different versions of the complainant make the case against the petitioner open to further inquiry. The learned counsel contends that petitioner is behind the bars since his arrest but there is no substantial progress in the trial.
3. The learned DPG assisted by learned counsel for the complainant opposed this petition by contending that although the petitioner is not nominated in the FIR but through supplementary statement he was fully implicated in the commission of the offence, as such, he is not entitled for bail.
4. Arguments heard. Record perused.
5. The petitioner is not nominated in the FIR, wherein, only Muhammad Yar and Mazhar were named with two unknown assailants, but even the features of said unknown persons have not been given in the FIR. The petitioner has been involved in this case through supplementary statement of the complainant which has been recorded about one year after the registration of the FIR. It is also an admitted position that subsequently the complainant also filed a private complaint against Muhammad Yar, Mazhar, Anwar and Sadiq, but withdrew the said complaint. Different versions 'taken by the complainant in the FIR, in the supplementary statement as well as in the private complaint, make the case against the petitioner one of further inquiry. The petitioner is behind the bars but there is no substantial progress in the trial, whereas, he cannot be kept confined for an indefinite period, which otherwise would amount to punishing him before trial. Consequently, this petition is allowed and petitioner is admitted to post arrest bail on furnishing bail bond in the sum of Rs.200,000/- with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of learned trial Court.