Muhammad Irfan vs The State and another
This matter comes before the Lahore High Court through a petition filed under Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, whereby the petitioner sought post-arrest bail in case FIR No. 523/15 registered under Sections 302, 201, 148, and 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 at Police Station Factory Area, Sheikhupura. The core legal questions involve whether the petitioner's delayed implication through a supplementary statement and his alleged role under Section 201 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 warrant further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The Court held that the petitioner's case falls within the scope of further inquiry, noting the unexplained delay in reporting, the petitioner's young age, his status as a previous non-convict, and the fact that he was found innocent during the initial investigation. The High Court admitted the petitioner to post-arrest bail. The key principles laid down include that mere heinousness of an offence is no ground to refuse bail, and that prolonged incarceration without completion of investigation makes out a case for further inquiry.
- Whether post-arrest bail should be granted when the accused is implicated through a belated supplementary statement?
- Does an offence falling under Section 201 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 warrant further inquiry for the purpose of bail under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Can the heinousness of an offence alone be a ground to refuse bail when the case otherwise falls within the ambit of further inquiry?
- Whether prolonged incarceration due to delayed investigation justifies the grant of bail?
- Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 201, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 148, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 149, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 497(2), Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
Through this petition under section 497 Cr.P.C. the petitioner has sought post-arrest bail in case FIR No.523/15 dated 30.04.2015 under sections 302, 201, 148, 149 PPC registered at Police Station Factory Area, Sheikhupura.
2. The arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties have been heard and 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. It has been noticed by this Court that there is an unexplained delay of six days in reporting the matter to the police, but even then the petitioner is not named therein as the culprit of the alleged offence. He has been involved in the instant case on the basis of supplementary statement got record ed by the complainant after the elapse of seven days from the occurrence and except supplementary statement, no other material is available against the present petitioner on the file of the case. Even in supplementary statement, the only allegation against the petitioner is that he was seen by the PWs throwing dead body of the deceased in canal alongwith his four nominated co-accused. If the evidence collected by the prosecution is found true, even then the petitioner can only be held liable to the extent of section 201 PPC, which carries maximum punishment upto seven years. Vicarious liability of the petitioner for committing murder of the deceased shall be determined by the learned trial court after recording evidence. According to matriculation certificate of the petitioner issued by the Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education, Lahore, the petitioner was just about 18 years of age at the time of occurrence. He has been implicated in the instant case alongwith his real mother and father namely Nusrat Bibi and Muhammad Mansha, so false implication of the petitioner by the complainant by spreading the net wide cannot be ruled out of consideration. Admittedly the petitioner is previous non-convict and never involved in any other case. He is behind the bars since 17.05.2015. During first round of investigation, he was found innocent by the investigating officer, whereas after first change of investigation on 30.07.2015, the investigation has not been completed after the lapse of two and half months, which is sheer violation of the provisions contained in Criminal Procedure Code, 1898. Mere heinousness of of fence is no ground to refuse bail.
Nobody can be kept in jail for indefinite period, therefore, at this stage his further incarc eration in jail would not serve any useful purpose.
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 petitio n 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.