Muhammad Ashfaq vs The State, etc.
This post-arrest bail application arose from an FIR registered under Sections 302, 34, and 324 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, following an incident where four un-named assailants inflicted hatchet blows resulting in the death of the victim. The petitioner was subsequently arrested on suspicion and identified during an identification parade. The core legal question was whether post-arrest bail should be granted where the petitioner was not named in the initial FIR despite being a close relative residing in the same vicinity, and where his involvement was alleged solely via a delayed supplementary statement based on suspicion. The High Court granted post-arrest bail, holding that suspicion, no matter how grave, cannot replace concrete connecting evidence. The court noted that the failure to explain how the petitioner's identity was discovered, along with an unspecific overt act and an inconsequential delayed recovery, rendered the case one of further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898.
- Does a delayed supplementary statement based purely on suspicion justify the refusal of post-arrest bail when the accused was not named in the FIR despite being a close relative?
- Can a case be considered one of further inquiry under Section 497(2) Cr.P.C. when the complainant fails to explain how the identity of an un-named relative was discovered post-incident?
- Whether recovery of a weapon made months after an incident is sufficient to disentitle an accused to post-arrest bail when primary connecting evidence is lacking?
- Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 34, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 324, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 161, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 54, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 497(2), Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
Muhammad Ashfaq, the petitioner-accused seeks post-arrest bail in case FIR No.83-2015 dated 30.03.2015, offence under Sections 302, 34 & 324 PPC, registered at Police Station Kala, District D.G.
Khan.
2. Briefly, the prosecution story as per FIR is that on 30.03.2015, when the complainant along with Nazir Ahmed, Bashir Ahmed and Muhammad Ismail, cousins were sleeping outside their house near to Indus Highway, they heard hue & cry of Nazir Ahmed, they saw that four unknown assailants were giving hatchet blows hitting on different parts of body of Nazir Ahmed and he was injured. On seeing the complainant party, they fled away from the place of occurrence. Nazir Ahmed was escorted to the Hospital for treatment, who subsequently succumbed to the injuries suffered by him on 28.04.2015.
3. Learned counsel for the parties as well as Additional Prosecutor General for the State has been heard. Record perused.
4. Admittedly, occurrence took place in the midnight of 29/30.03.2015, whereas the matter was reported to the police on 30.03.2015 at 10:40 A.M. Without any plausible explanation. As per FIR, four unknown accused persons had caused injuries to Nazir Ahmed but name of the petitioner is not found mentioned in the FIR, even no description of the assailants has been given therein.
Prosecution witnesses in their statements recorded under section 161 of Cr.P.C. Have not given any source of identification of the present petitioner.
5. On 11.05.2015 having receipt of spy information, the petitioner was arrested under section 54 of Cr.P.C. On the basis of suspicion. Thereafter, he was put to test of identification parade, where PWs identified the present petitioner as one of the real culprits of the occurrence. The petitioner and the complainant party not only close relatives but also living in the same vicinity and despite this fact the complainant as well as the PWs who had seen the occurrence, failed to identify the petitioner at the spot. The name of the petitioner was introduced by the complainant through supplementary statement which was recorded by Investigating Officer of this case when identification parade was held on 19.05.2015. No overt act of giving hatchet blow to the deceased has been specifically attributed to the present petitioner. Only suspicion was extended towards the petitioner in the supplementary statement for the commission of offence. This assertion is not admissible in the evidence as suspicion, how grave cannot take place the connecting evidence qua the guilt of the present petitioner; therefore, it is a case of further inquiry. In this regard reliance can be placed in a case reported as "Jaffar and others Vs. The State" (1980 SCM R 784). It has also been held by the August Supreme Court of Pakistan in case reported as "Naeem Akhtar Vs. The State" (1996 SCM R 511), that supplementary statement made by the complainant subsequently did not disclose as to how actually he came to know the name of the present petitioner, when in-fact he being close relative of the petitioner did not disclose his name in the FIR. The petitioner, therefore, could not be reasonably believed to have committed the offence which falls within the prohibitory clause of section 497 Cr.P.C.
6. The alleged recovery of hatchet is inconsequential which was recovered after two months of the occurrence. Petitioner is behind the bars since 11.05.2015. His further incarceration for indefinite period without conclusion of the trial would not serve any useful purpose to the prosecution. Even otherwise the petitioner has successfully made out the case of further inquiry, which also falls within the ambit of sub-section (2) of Section 497 Cr.P.C.
7. Resultantly, the instant petition is accepted as a result whereof, Muhammad Ashfaq, the petitioner admitted to bail after arrest, subject to his furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs:2,00,000/- with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court. The observations made in the instant petition are tentative in nature and shall not prejudice the case of either of the parties.