BAKHT NAWAZ vs STATE and anothers
The petitioner, Bakht Nawaz, sought post-arrest bail in case FIR No. 699 dated 04.12.2013 registered under Sections 302, 393, and 109 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 at Police Station Saddar Jalalpur, Pirwala. The core legal question was whether the petitioner, who was not named in the initial FIR and was later implicated via a supplementary statement as an abettor, was entitled to post-arrest bail when the police had found him innocent during investigation and no identification parade was conducted. The Lahore High Court held that the petitioner was entitled to bail as his case fell within the ambit of Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 for further inquiry, noting the delay in supplementary nomination, the absence of an identification parade, and the lack of sufficient connecting material. The key principle laid down is that where an unnamed accused is implicated later through a supplementary statement, police declare him innocent, and no identification parade is held, his guilt becomes a matter of further inquiry warranting post-arrest bail under section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898.
- Is an accused entitled to post-arrest bail when implicated through a belated supplementary statement without an identification parade?
- Does the case of an accused fall under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 when the police find him innocent during investigation?
- Whether post-arrest bail should be granted when the prosecution fails to collect sufficient material connecting the petitioner to the alleged offence?
- Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 393, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 109, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 497(2), Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
' Bakht Nawaz, petitioner seeks bail after arrest in case FIR No, 699 dated 04.12.2013 under Sections 302, 393 and 109 PPC registered at Police Station Saddar Jalalpur, Pirwala.
2. Precisely, the prosecution story as mentioned in the FIR is that on 04.12.2013 at about 04:45 p.m.
While complainant alongwith with PWs by boarding on a car were proceeding towards Hafiz Wala after getting cash from MCB Bank Jalalpur Pirwala near Adda Qureshian, two unknown persons while riding on motorbike were chasing them and on gun point tried to stop their car. While confronting such situation, Ameer Bakhsh PW by taking the cash started running towards fields and when the accused tried to snatch cash from him, Irshad Hussain (deceased) resisted them, upon which aid accused persons made straight fire with their weapons on the person of Irshad Hussain (deceased) which hit him, on his different parts of body who succumbed to the injuries at the spot.
3. Heard. The petitioner is not nominated in the FIR and he was implicated in this case on the supplementary statement got recorded by the complainant. On 08.09.2014, the complainant moved an application to the police accusing present petitioner being the facilitator/ abettor of commission of offence. Petitioner was arrested on 03.10.2014 and during course of investigation, the police declared him as innocent and moved for his discharge before the learned Illaqa Magistrate who did not concur with the findings of the police. No identification parade test has been conducted as in the FIR two unknown accused persons were to be the culprits of commission of offence. Moreover, in application dated 08.09.2014, five accused persons including the petitioner have been implicated whereas in the FIR there is, only mention of two unknown accused persons.
Moreover, the petitioner is culprit of offence of conspiracy and main role has been attributed to other co-accused persons. The prosecution could not collect any sufficient material to connect the petitioner with the commission of alleged offence. Petitioner is behind the bars and is no more required to the police for further investigation. Even otherwise, the case of the petitioner squarely falls within the ambit of section 497(2), Cr.P.C. As guilt of petitioner in the commission of alleged offence needs further probe.
5: For what has been discussed above, this petition is allowed and petitioner is admitted to post arrest bail subject to his furnishing bail bond in the sum of Rs,1,00.000/- (rupees one lakh only) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of learned trial Court.
6. However, it is made clear that the above findings are tentative in nature and shall have no bearing on the trial of the case.