HAMID MEHMOOD vs STATE and another
This criminal petition was filed under Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 seeking post-arrest bail in an FIR registered under Section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The central issue was whether the petitioner was entitled to bail given the unexplained delay by prosecution eye-witnesses in identifying the accused and discrepancies in their statements before the trial court. The High Court noted that the eyewitnesses remained silent for several days after the incident before informing the deceaseds' father, failed to explain how they identified the deceased girls, and one witness testified that his signature was obtained on a blank paper by the Investigating Officer. The Court held that these circumstances rendered the guilt of the petitioner a matter requiring further inquiry under Section 497(2), Cr.P.C. Reliance was placed on the principle that unexplained delays and contradictory witness statements justify bail under the doctrine of further inquiry. Consequently, the High Court accepted the petition and granted post-arrest bail to the petitioner.
- Does an unexplained delay by alleged eye-witnesses in reporting the occurrence bring the case within the ambit of further inquiry under Section 497(2) Cr.P.C.?
- Whether contradictions in prosecution witness testimonies during trial entitle an accused person to post-arrest bail?
- Is an accused entitled to post-arrest bail when key prosecution witnesses allege that police obtained their signatures on blank papers?
- Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
Through this petition filed under Section 497, Cr.P.C. The petitioner Hamid Mehmood seeks post- arrest bail in FIR No, 585/2013, dated 26.9.2013 for offence under Section 302, PPC registered at Police Station Noshehra & Virkan, District Gujranwala.
2. Arguments have been heard and the record perused.
3. According to the FIR on 26.9.2013 at around 02:00 p.m. The complainant heard fire shots, went to the place of occurrence and saw two young girls lying dead in a pool of blood. As per the complainant two girls who were not known to him had been murdered by some unknown person.
The father of the deceased girls Shabbir Ahmad while getting his statement recorded stated that Tariq Javed and Safdar Hussain informed him on 3.10.2013 that his daughters had been fired at and killed by the petitioner. No plausible explanation is forthcoming as to why Tariq Javed and Safdar Hussain who have stated to have witnessed the occurrence on 26.9.2013 at 02:00 p.m. Kept quiet and did not inform the father of the deceased girls till 3.10.2013. The learned Deputy District Public Prosecutor failed to explain as to how the prosecution witnesses Tariq Javed and Safdar Hussain came to know that the deceased were the daughters of Shabbir Ahmad. The prosecution witness Tariq Javed while appearing as PW7 stated that the accused had fired at towards him and Safdar Hussain. The prosecution witness Tariq Javed while deposing before the trial Court also stated that the Investigating Officer had obtained his signature on a blank piece of paper. The statement recorded by the prosecution witnesses Tariq Javed and Safdar Hussain while appearing before the trial Court is not in line with the prosecution case. All these factors would bring the case of the petitioner within the ambit of further inquiry calling into his guilt. Meaning thereby he would be entitled to the grant of bail in terms of law laid down by the august Supreme Court of Pakistan in Ehsan Ullah Versus The State (2012 SCM R 1137). The petitioner was arrested on 6.11.2013, more than two years have gone by but the trial has not been concluded. C There is nothing on the record to establish that the petitioner has any criminal antecedents.
4. For what has been stated above, this petition 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/- (rupees two hundred thousand only) with two sureties in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court.