Muhammad Zubair Waseem vs The State & another
This matter arises from petitions seeking post-arrest bail in a criminal case registered under Sections 365-A of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 and 155-C of the Police Order 2002 regarding the alleged abduction of the complainant's brother for ransom. The core legal question is whether the petitioners are entitled to bail on the grounds of further inquiry due to material contradictions in the statements of prosecution witnesses and the principle of consistency arising from the grant of bail to co-accused. The court held that substantial contradictions concerning the place of abduction, lack of corroborative material for alleged ATM withdrawals, and differing stances on ransom calls bring the case within the scope of further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. Additionally, co-accused with identical roles having been granted bail entitled the petitioners to the same relief. The court laid down the principle that where material contradictions exist in the statements of key prosecution witnesses creating a reasonable possibility of a second view of the guilt, the accused is entitled to post-arrest bail under the spirit of further inquiry.
- Does a material contradiction in the statements of the abductee and the complainant bring a case within the purview of further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Whether an accused is entitled to post-arrest bail on the rule of consistency when co-accused with identical roles have already been granted bail?
- Can bail be granted when the investigating officer fails to collect corroborative material regarding alleged ATM withdrawals mentioned by the abductee?
- Section 365-A, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 155-C, Police Order 2002
- Section 497(2), Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 161, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 164, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
The Petitioners namely Muhammad Zubair Waseem (Crl. Misc. No.47481-B/2021) and Muhammad Qasim (Crl.
Misc. No.46985-B/2021) seek their post-arrest bail in case FIR No.563, dated 12.05.2021, registered with Police Station City Daska, District Sialkot, under Sections 365-A, P.P.C. and 155-C of The Police Order , 2002, being accused of abducting/kidnapping complainant's brother Abdul Saim (aged about 24-years) and demanding ransom amount of Rs.300,000/-. This single order shall dispose of both the above-captioned petitions as the same have arisen out of same FIR.
2. Hon'ble Supreme Court in a latest judgment reported as "Jahanzeb and others v. State through A.G. Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Peshawar and another" (2021 SCMR 63) expressed its view for considering the case of further inquiry' in a case where there exists reaso nable possibility of other view about the guilt based on material available on record. Relevant portion of the said dictum is as follows:- "Intent of the legislature in S.497(2), Cr.P.C. disclosing pre-condition to establish "guilt" against whom accusation was levelled had to be established on the basis of reasonable grounds, however , if there existed any possibility to have a second view of the material available on the record then the accused was entitled for the relief of bail in the spirit of S.497(2), Cr .P.C."
3. We have examined the case in the light of guideline given in the above-noted case-law and it is confronted to the learned Deputy Prosecutor General as well as learned counsel for the respondent-complainant but they remained unable to rebut the following contradictions in the statements of abductee and complainant which are as under:
(a) Place of abduction of the abductee (his own house) in the FIR as stated by his real brother (complainant) is 'Daska' whereas the statements u/s 161 & 164, Cr.P.C. got recorded by the alleged abductee after seven days of FIR describe his residence at W apda Town Gujranwala.
(b) The abductee alleged in his statement u/s 164, Cr.P.C. that accused drew Rs.85000/- from his account through ATM but no material has been collected by the investigating officer in this regard as he admitted before the Court.
Besides even details of alleged withdrawal are not available that where from it was drawn etc.
(c) He alleged that subsequently he was shifted to his owned car whereas neither he handed over the key of the car to the alleged accused nor he could confirm this fact as his face was allegedly covered.
(d) The complainant, as per contents of FIR, attended mobile call for ransom amount from the cell number of abductee (his brother) by the accused persons whereas the alleged abductee's statement reflects that the accused persons never talked directly to his brother .
These material changes in stance create doubt and give rise to a question whether it was a free movement or otherwise. Said doubt arising from different statements of two main PWs being a relevant circumstance brings the case of the petitioners within purview of further inquiry .
4. Another aspect of the case is that the petitioners? co-accused namely Shaheer Aman and Maqsood Shakeel, also nominated in the FIR with role identical to the present petitioners and also described by the abductee in his statement u/s 164, Cr.P.C., have been allowed pre-arrest bail by the learned trial Court on 18.06.2021, which being unchallenged, is still in the field. This being so, the present petitioners also deserve for the same relief as envisaged under Section 497(2), Cr .P.C.
5. Petitioners are behind the bars since their arrest and no more required for further investigation. Trial is also not in sight. To keep the petitioners in Jail for an indefinite period would not serve any useful purpose. Hence, these petitions are accepted and the petitioners are admitted to bail subject to their furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs.2,00,000/- each with one surety each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court. However , the observations made hereinabove are tentative in nature and will not prejudice the trial of any party .