TANVEER and anothers vs THE STATE and others
This matter arises from criminal petitions seeking post-arrest bail in a case involving offenses under sections 302, 148, and 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code. The core legal question concerns whether the petitioners are entitled to post-arrest bail given the circumstances of their implication, delay in supplementary statements, police investigation findings, and specific overt acts attributed during a daylight murder. The court held that one petitioner, whose implication through a belated supplementary statement without specific overt acts warranted further inquiry under subsection (2) of section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, was granted bail. Conversely, the second petitioner, who was specifically named in the prompt FIR of a broad-daylight occurrence with direct witness support connecting him to the fatal firearm injuries falling within the prohibitory clause, was denied bail. The key principle established is that delayed supplementary statements lacking specific attributions may justify further inquiry for bail, whereas prompt specific naming in daylight incidents with corroborative testimony disentitles an accused from bail under the prohibitory clause.
- Whether an accused implicated through a belated supplementary statement without specific overt acts is entitled to post-arrest bail under section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure?
- Does a prompt FIR of a broad-daylight occurrence with direct witness support justify denying bail for an offense falling within the prohibitory clause of section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure?
- Is an accused connected to a murder through generalized allegations in a delayed statement entitled to further inquiry into his guilt?
- Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 148, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 149, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
' RAUF AHMAD SHAIKH, J.---Through this single order, I propose to dispose of Criminal Miscellaneous No,2204-B of 2011 (Tanveer v. The State and others) and Criminal Miscellaneous No,4048-6 of 2011 (Malik Waheed Abdul Hameed v. The State and others) as both these petitions arise out of F.I.R.
No,716 of 2010, dated 31-10-2010, under sections 302/148/149 P.P.C., Police Station Baghbanpura, District Gujranwala.
2. Briefly stated the prosecution version as set forth in the F.I.R. Recorded on the application of Muhammad Yaqub, complainant is that he along with Arshad Javed on one Motorcycle and his son Muhammad Tariq, who was riding another Motorcycle was going on Hafizabad road towards Alam Chowk in connection with his business. When they arrived near Bilal Road Corner, the petitioner Malik Waheed alias Abdul Hameed, Kashif alias Kashi, Muhammad Nadeem and Ghulam Murtaza along with two unknown persons all armed with fire arms arrived there and raised "Lalkara" that Muhammad Tariq would not escape alive and would be taught a lesson for pursuing the case and thereafter, all of them started making firing on Muhammad Tariq, who fell on the ground and succumbed to injuries. The motive was stated to be murder case of his other son Muhammad Waris, which was being pursued by Muhammad Tariq deceased.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioners has contended that Tanveer petitioner is resident of the same Mohallah and was well-known to the complainant and the P.Ws but he was not nominated in the F.I.R. And was implicated through supplementary statement dated 1-12-2010, after one month of the occurrence and even in the said belated statement no specific role was attributed to him; that he has been roped falsely due to his relationship with co-accused Kashif alias Kashi; that nothing was recovered from him and according to the I.O. He was not involved in the commission of the offence; that Mst. Aneeta wife of the deceased had filed a complaint wherein, she had alleged that the respondents in the said complaint had made an attempt to abduct her and also extended threats to kill her so the possibility of the murder by those persons cannot be ruled out
4. It is further contended that Malik Waheed alias Abdul Hameed has also been roped falsely due to previous enmity and no specific injury to the deceased is attributed to him; that nothing was recovered from him and he was also declared innocent by the 1.0.
5. It is not denied that Tanveer petitioner is very well-known to the complainant and the P.Ws. He was not nominated in the F.I.R. The supplementary statement made after one month and one day cannot be equated with the F.I.R. And even otherwise in this statement also no overt act is attributed to him and it was only alleged that he was also involved in the commission of the offence. In these circumstances, the allegation regarding his involvement in the commission of the offence clearly needs further probe and inquiry within the meanings of subsection (2) of section 497 of The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898.
6. The occurrence took place at 10-30 a.m. On 31-10-2010 and the F.I.R. Was lodged at 11-30 a.m. On the same day. It was a broad-daylight occurrence and there was no possibility of misidentification.
The contention that Abdul Qayyum etc. The respondents of the private complaint filed by Mst.Aneela might have committed the murder has no force because the real father of the deceased would have not spared them, had they been in fact involved in the commission of the offence. P.W Arshad awed has fully supported the prosecution version. The deceased sustained 12 fire arms injuries or his person. According to the P.Ws, the petitioner and his co-accused persons all made firing with their respective weapons. Prima facie, the petitioner is responsible for all injuries sustained by the victim and his ultimate demise so is connected with the commission of the offence punishable under section 302, P.P.C., which falls within the prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C.
7. For the reasons supra, the Criminal Miscellaneous No,2204-B of 2011 filed by Tanveer is accepted and he is admitted to bail subject to his furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs,2,00,000 with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial court whereas the Criminal Miscellaneous No,4048-B of 2011 filed by Malik Waheed Abdul Hameed is hereby dismissed.