RAYEES KHAN and 3 others vs THE STATE
This is a criminal bail application filed before the Peshawar High Court by four accused petitioners seeking pre-trial release in case F.I.R. No. 2 dated 5-1-2011 registered at Police Station Panyala under sections 353, 324, 148, and 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question involved whether the nomination of additional accused persons through a delayed supplementary statement and the attribution of a non-vital injury make the case one of further inquiry under section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The court held that the delay and improvement in nominating accused persons via a supplementary statement renders their involvement doubtful, and since the injury was sustained on a non-vital part of the body, the petitioners' case falls within the scope of further inquiry. The application was consequently accepted, admitting the petitioners to post-arrest bail subject to furnishing reliable sureties. The key principle laid down is that the nomination of additional accused persons through a subsequent supplementary statement constitutes an improvement that makes the case arguable for further inquiry, entitling the accused to bail.
- Whether the nomination of accused persons in a supplementary statement after a delay constitutes a fake improvement making the case one of further inquiry?
- Does an injury sustained on a non-vital part of the body by itself warrant the grant of post-arrest bail?
- Can the involvement of accused persons charged through a supplementary statement be equated with the initial First Information Report?
- Section 353, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 324, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 148, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 149, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ATTAULLAH KHAN, J.---Accused/petitioners, namely, Races. Khan, Izat Khan, Habibullah and Hayatullah, charged in case F.I.R. No. 2 dated 5-1-2011 of Police Station Panyala under sections 353/324/148/149, P.P.C. Have filed this application for their release on bail.
2. The allegations against the accused/petitioners are that they in furtherance of their common object had assembled unlawfully and thus effectively fired with their respective weapons at the complainant with which he was hit on left arm.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners argued that six persons are charged by the complainant in his initial report, of whom two are named while the remaining four are unnamed but subsequently named in the supplementary statement. He contended that the injury sustained by the victim/complainant is not on vital part of his body and thus the case is not falling within the restrictive clause of section 497, Cr.P.C.
4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State opposed the grant of bail to the petitioners on the -ground that they had taken law in their own hands and being reasonably connected with the offence are not entitled to the discretionary relief of bail.
5. I have carefully gone through the record and considered the arguments of the learned counsel for the. Parties.
6. A look at the F.I.R. Reveals that in its earlier part, two persons are mentioned to have suddenly appeared and opened firing which hit the complainant on his left arm ^and when the complainant fired in retaliation, the two accused ran away. It is also mentioned in the last part of the F.I.R. That some four persons emerged on the scene and opened fire but it proved ineffective. According to the complainant, out of the six persons, he identified Raees Khan, Izzat Khan and'Habib Khan. The F.I.R. Reveals that in the first instance, three accused were identified by the complainant. On the second day of the alleged occurrence, his supplementary statement was recorded wherein he named the three accused on the basis of disclosure through reliable source. Apparently, the nomination of accused in installments has made the case of the accused/petitioners arguable for the purposes of bail, because if the second set of the accused was known to the complainant, he would have named them along with the first set. He has mentioned only two persons but without disclosing their names. Similarly, further four persons were mentioned without their names and in the subsequent part, three accused have been named while the remaining three have been charged on the second day, in the supplementary statement.
7. As far as the supplementary statement is concerned, it is to be examined in the light of judgment reported in 2011 AC-12, wherein it has been held that:-- "This improvement clearly shows that supplementary statement was made after due consultation and deliberation to falsely involve the accused. This point was examined by this Court in the case of Falak Sher v. State (1995 SCM R 1350), wherein it has been observed that 'any statement or further statement of the First informant recorded during the investigation by police would neither be equated with First Information Report, nor read as part of it and the involvement of additional accused in such statement was fake improvement which made the basis for other eye-witnesses as well for false implication'. The said rule was reiterated in subsequent decision of this Court in the case of Khalid Javed v. State (2003 SCM R 1419) and further observed that such witness would be unreliable."
8. In view of the above verdict, the charge of three accused in the supplementary statement of the complainant is doubtful and cannot be equated with the F.I.R. And hence this makes the case of the accused/petitioner as of further enquiry.
9. In this case, six accused including the present petitioners have been charged for firing which resulted into a single injury to the complainant but none of them has been specifically charged for shot which proved fatal. This is also a question to be resolved at the trial. Further more, the injury sustained by the injured/complainant is on the left arm which is ,a non-vital part and coupled with the other circumstances pointed out above, the case of the accused/petitioners is arguable for the purposes of bail.
10. The application is, therefore, accepted and the accused/ petitioners are admitted to bail provided each of them furnishes bail bond in the sum of rupees one lac with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of Illaqa/Judicial Magistrate, who shall ensure that the sureties are local, reliable and men of means. revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.