IRFAN alias FANI vs The STATE and others
This matter concerns a post-arrest bail application filed by the petitioner, Irfan alias Fani, who was implicated in a murder case. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to bail given the circumstances of his implication and the duration of his incarceration. The complainant initially reported the crime against unknown persons but later, in a supplementary statement recorded over 24 hours after the F.I.R., named the petitioner. The petitioner was attributed the role of firing at the deceased's ankle, while a co-accused was alleged to have caused the fatal chest wound. The court observed that the delay in naming the petitioner raised evidentiary questions to be determined at trial. Noting that the petitioner had been in custody since June 2011 without the conclusion of the trial, the court held that the case fell within the scope of further inquiry under the relevant provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Consequently, the court granted post-arrest bail, emphasizing that the evidentiary value of the delayed supplementary statement remains a matter for the trial court to assess.
- Does a delay of over 24 hours in recording a supplementary statement to name an accused justify the grant of bail under the principle of further inquiry?
- Is an accused entitled to post-arrest bail when the trial has remained pending for a significant period without conclusion?
- Section 337-F(iv), Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 497(2), Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
1. ' SHAHID HAMEED DAR, J.---The complainant, Riasat Ali has alleged in the F.I.R. That his real brother Anwar Ali was attacked and murdered by two unknown armed men/accused at about 11.00 p.m.
2. On 19-5-2011; one of the accused fired at the right ankle of his brother and the other fired into his chest.
2. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record, it is observed that the petitioner has been named as an accused of this case vide supplementary statement of the complainant, which he rendered on 21-5-2011, a day after the registration of the F.I.R. With the contention, that he being highly perturbed and in a confused state of mind, could not nominate the accused while reporting the crime to the A. Police, albeit he knew both of them. He attributed the role of firing at the right ankle of the deceased to the accused-petitioner and burdened Amjad Masih accused with the liability of causing the chest-wound. The supplementary statement appears to have been made by the complainant more than 24 hours after the registration of the F.I.R. It itches the mind that he required such a long period of time to compose and recollect himself. Further remarks in this regard may prejudice the case of any of the parties; hence it is left for the learned trial court to assess true evidentiary value thereof, after recording evidence of the parties at trial. The contents of the postmortem examination report show that the injury on the ankle of the deceased was Ghayr Jaifah Mudihah (337-F(iv) P.P.C.) which is punishable with five years imprisonment. The medical officer has declared the chest-injury as fatal to the deceased.
3. The petitioner was taken into custody on 24-6-2011 and he has been languishing in jail ever since.
4. His trial has not concluded as yet. Without entering into the niceties as to who occasioned delay in conclusion of trial, I find it a case falling within the scope of section 497(2), Cr.P.C. Therefore, I allow this application and admit the petitioner to post arrest bail subject to 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.
Cited by 1 case
- ALI SHER and others vs The STATE 2016 P Cr. L J 627