AMAN ULLAH vs STATE and anothers
The petitioner sought post-arrest bail in a case registered under Sections 302 and 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 at Police Station Sadar, Jhang, regarding the murder of the complainant's brother. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to post-arrest bail given his delayed nomination through a supplementary statement and the nature of the available evidence. The Lahore High Court accepted the bail application and held that the petitioner was entitled to further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The court reasoned that the petitioner was not nominated in the initial FIR but named eight months later via a supplementary statement, there was no direct evidence linking him to the crime, the incriminating evidence consisted of an extra-judicial confession and circumstantial sightings whose evidentiary value would be determined at trial, and continued incarceration would serve no useful purpose.
- Whether an accused nominated through a delayed supplementary statement is entitled to post-arrest bail when the case calls for further inquiry?
- What is the evidentiary significance of an extra-judicial confession at the bail stage?
- Does the absence of direct evidence connecting the accused to the crime warrant the grant of bail under Section 497(2), Cr.P.C.?
- Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 34, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 497(2), Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
' Aman Ullah, the petitioner seeks post-arrest bail in case registered vide F.I.R. No, 387/14 dated 1.9.2014, under Sections 302, 34, P.P.C., at Police Station Sadar, Jhang.
2. In the FIR, the complainant reported Qatal-e-Amd of his brother, namely, Mumtaz Hussain against unknown accused. Later on, the petitioner along with his co-accused was nominated through a supplementary statement recorded on 21.04.2015.
3. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record, it was straightaway observed:
(i) That the petitioner was not nominated in the F.I.R. And was nominated by the complainant through supplementary statement recorded after about eight months of the occurrence and the evidentiary value of the supplementary statement would be adjudged by the learned trial Court after recording some evidence at trial;
(ii) That the incriminating evidence against the petitioner available on record is that of extra- judicial confession made by the petitioner on 2.9.2014 before the witnesses and that he was seen by the witnesses craning from the place of occurrence;
(iii) That, there is no direct evidence available on record against the petitioner to connect him with the titled occurrence;
(iv) That the question of vicarious liability of the petitioner will be determined at trial;
(v) That the petitioner is behind the bars since his arrest which would serve no purpose to the prosecution; and
(vi) That the case of the petitioner needs further enquiry into his guilt within the meaning of Section 497 (2), Cr.P.C.
4. For the reasons mentioned above, the application is accepted and the petitioner is admitted to post-arrest bail subject to his furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs,2,00,000/-with one surety each in the like amount to the satisfaction of learned trial Court.