Maqsood Ahmad vs The State etc.
This is a petition for post-arrest bail filed under Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 in a case involving charges under Sections 302, 109, 148, and 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the petitioner, who was not named in the FIR and was implicated via a supplementary statement recorded over two months after the incident without a specified source, was entitled to bail. The Lahore High Court held that the petitioner was entitled to the concession of bail. The Court reasoned that the supplementary statement lacked evidentiary value, and the petitioner was entitled to bail based on the rule of consistency, as co-accused with similar roles had already been granted bail. Furthermore, the Court determined that the petitioner’s case fell under the category of further inquiry, as the investigation was complete and the petitioner was a previous non-convict. The key principle laid down is that where an accused is implicated through a supplementary statement without source, and co-accused with similar roles have been granted bail, the petitioner is entitled to bail under the rule of consistency.
- Does a supplementary statement recorded without a source provide a valid basis for implicating an accused in a criminal case?
- Is an accused entitled to bail on the rule of consistency if co-accused with similar roles have already been granted bail?
- Does the commencement of a trial constitute a valid ground to refuse bail to an accused who is otherwise entitled to it?
- When does a criminal case qualify as one of further inquiry under Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 109, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 148, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 149, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 7, Anti-Terrorism Act 1997
Through this petition under section 497 Cr.P.C. the petitioner has sought post-arrest bail in case FIR No.24/2014 dated 19.01.2014 under sections 302, 109, 148, 149 PPC, subsequently section 7ATA was deleted, registered at Police Station Hair, Lahore.
2. The arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties have been heard and the record of this case has also been perused with their able assistance. This is bail after arrest and deeper appreciation is not allowed at this stage. The petitioner is not named in the FIR. He has been involved in this case by the complainant through supplementary statement recorded on 25.03.2014 i.e. after two months and six days of the occurrence and that too without source. It is settled law that supplementary statement without source has got no value in the eyes of law. Reliance can easily be placed upon 1996 SCM R 511. During investigation he has been found guilty to the extent of hatching a conspiracy and abetment for the commission of the alleged offence. Co-accused of the petitioner namely Muhammad Rafique and Nazir Ahmad with similar roles have been allowed bail by this Court vide order dated 10.11.2014 passed in Criminal Miscellaneous No.14773-B of 2014 and the petitioner also deserves for the concession of bail on the ground of rule of consistency. It is settled law that the question of sharing common object by the petitioner with his co-accused for the murder of deceased shall be determined by the learned trial court after recording evidence.
Mere commencement of trial is no ground to refuse bail if otherwise the accused becomes entitled to the concession of bail. The petitioner is previous non-convict and never involved in any other case. The petitioner is behind the bars since 19.06.2014. Investigation of the case to his extent is complete and he is no more required for further investigation. His further incarceration in jail would not serve any useful purpose. It is settled law that if case of the accused becomes one of further inquiry he can claim the benefit of bail as a matter of right. Reliance can easily be placed upon 2012 SCM R 1273. Possibility of false implication of the petitioner cannot be ruled out of consideration.
3. For what has been discussed above, the case of the petitioner becomes one of further inquiry covered by sub-section (2) of section 497 Cr.P.C. This petition is, therefore, allowed and the petitioner is granted bail after arrest subject to his furnishing bail bond in the sum of Rs.200,000/- (Rupees two hundred thousand only) with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial court.
4. The observations made above are tentative in nature and are strictly confined to the decision of this bail petition only.