Muhammad Aslam vs State etc
The petitioner sought post-arrest bail in case FIR No. 530 registered under Sections 365, 302, and 201 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 at Police Station Kot Momin, District Sargodha. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to post-arrest bail in view of the delayed FIR, the nature of the allegations, and the statements of witnesses recorded under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The Lahore High Court held that the petitioner made out a case for further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, noting a significant delay of over two and a half months in lodging the FIR and the contradictory statements of witnesses. The petition was consequently allowed, admitting the petitioner to post-arrest bail. The key principle laid down is that where eye-witnesses retract their statements or cast doubt through Section 164 Cr.P.C. statements and there is an unexplained delay in lodging the FIR, the case falls within the scope of further inquiry warranting the grant of bail.
- Whether an unexplained delay of more than two months in lodging the FIR makes the case one of further inquiry for the purpose of post-arrest bail?
- Does the retraction of witnesses in their statements recorded under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 justify granting post-arrest bail?
- Can an accused be admitted to post-arrest bail when the investigation reveals no direct injury attributed to him?
- Section 365, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 201, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 164, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 161, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
Petitioner (Muhammad Aslam) seeks post arrest bail in case FIR No. 530 dated 17.07.2020 offences under Sections 365, 302, 201, PPC registered at Police Station Kot Momin, District Sargodha, after refusing of the same by learned Court below .
2. Heard. Record perused.
3. Precise allegation against the petitioner is that he along with his co-accused after abduction committed murder of Azhar Iqbal (deceased). Learned DPG on instructions submits that during investigation, it transpired that petitioner did not cause any injury to deceased, however , after occurrence threw his dead body into Noorpur Thal Canal in presence of Ali Asghar and Muhammad Zahoor (witnesses) who while appearing before learned Judicial Magistrate on 28.09.2020 got recorded their statements under Section 164, Cr.P.C. contrary to the version of the prosecution and stated that they are neither witnesses in this case nor got recorded their statements under Section 161, Cr.P.C.
Even otherwise, FIR shows that occurrence took place on 02.05.2020 at 10:00 a.m. whereas FIR was lodged on 17.07.2020 at 10:05 p.m. with the delay of about 2 months 15 days. In these circumstances, evidentiary value of delayed statements would be determined by learned trial Court after recordin g of the evidence. At present, petitioner has succeeded to make his case as that of further inquiry .
4. For the foregoing reasons, this petition is allowed and the petitioner (Muhammad Aslam) is admitted to post arrest bail subject to his furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs. 10,00,000/- (Rupees Ten Lac Only) with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of learned trial Court. However , it is clarified that the observations made hereinabove are tentative in nature and strictly confined to the disposal of this bail petition.