Muhammad Arshad alias Achhi vs The State and aother
Through this petition, the petitioner sought post-arrest bail in case FIR No. 2957/2023 registered under sections 302, 34, 148, 149, and 109 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 at Police Station Saddar Sheikhupura. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to post-arrest bail given the delay in recording the supplementary statement, the general role attributed to him, the introduction of delayed motive without substantiation, and the police investigation indicating his mere presence empty-handed at the scene. The Lahore High Court accepted the bail petition and held that the prosecution case against the petitioner required further probe and inquiry within the meaning of Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The key principle laid down is that where an accused is implicated through a belated supplementary statement with general allegations, unverified motive, and an investigative finding of mere presence without overt acts or weapon recovery, the case falls within the scope of further inquiry, entitling the accused to post-arrest bail.
- Whether post-arrest bail can be granted when the accused is not named in the initial FIR and is implicated through a delayed supplementary statement?
- Does a general role of inflicting blows without specific attribution to an accused warrant further inquiry under criminal jurisprudence?
- Whether the introduction of an unverified motive after a delay constitutes sufficient ground to deny post-arrest bail?
- Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 34, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 148, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 149, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 109, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
M ALIK SHAHZAD AHM AD KHAN, J. Through the instant petition, the petitioner seeks post arrest bail in case FIR No.2957/2023, dated 11.11.2023, Under sections 302/34/148/149/109 P.P.C., registered at Police Station Saddar Sheikhupura.
2. Arguments heard. Record perused.
3. As per brief allegations levelled in the FIR, Rehmat Ullah complainant alleged that his son namely Muhammad Waqas aged about 25/26 years went out of his house on 08.11.2023 at 9.00 a.m but thereafter, he did not return to his house. The complainant tried to trace out his son but he could not find him, however, on 11.11.2023 at about 5.10 p.m, his other son informed him on phone that the dead-body of Muhammad Waqas deceased was lying in the area of Khairpur Malian. The complainant further alleged that some unknown accused due to unknown reasons had committed the murder of his son namely Muhammad Waqas while extending torture on him, hence the above mentioned FIR.
4. The petitioner was not named in the FIR and he has been implicated in this case through the supplementary statement of the complainant, which was recorded on 11.11.2023 i.e., after three days from the occurrence, however, the said statement was made on the day of registration of FIR i.e., 11.11.2023. In the said supplementary statement, Rehmat Ullah complainant alleged that he was informed by one Muhammad Yasin PW that he had seen the petitioner and his four named as well as two unknown accused while abducing Muhammad Waqas (deceased) in a Hundi car bearing Registration No.AEM-247, whereas two accused were riding on a motorcycle. The complainant further alleged that another witness namely Muhammad Mushtaq PW also told him that on 08.11.2023 at 10.00 a.m, he had seen the petitioner and his co-accused while inflicting danda, sota and pistol butt blows on the body of Muhammad Waqas deceased. The motive was also introduced through the abovementioned supplementary statement that as Muhammad Waqas deceased had to receive some amount from the petitioner, therefore, his murder was committed by the petitioner and his co-accused. Although the prosecution introduced an eye-witness in this case namely Muhammad Mushtaq PW, who claimed that on 08.11.2023 at 10.00 a.m, he had seen the petitioner and his co-accused while inflicting danda blows on the head of Muhammad Waqas deceased in the bhatick of Babar co-accused due to which the deceased became seriously injured but it is not understandable that if Muhammad Mushtaq PW had seen the occurrence of a heinous offence of murder of an innocent person or causing serious injuries to him then as to why he remained mum for three days. Although he made an excuse that due to threats and fear of the accused persons, he could not disclose the above-mentioned fact to anybody but he had not explained that as to how and when his fear was over. His statement in this respect is completely silent. The abovementioned conduct of Muhammad Mushtaq PW requires further probe and inquiry. It is also noteworthy that for single deceased of this case, the complainant has implicated five named and two unknown accused and as such total seven persons have been implicated in this case for the murder of a single deceased. A joint and general role of inflicting danda blows on the head of Muhammad Waqas deceased was assigned to Muhammad Arshad alias Achhi petitioner, Babar and Sufiyan co-accused and no specific injury has been attributed to the petitioner in the statement of Mushtaq PW. The car or motorcycle, which were mentioned in the supplementary statement of the complainant dated 11.11.2023, through which the accused persons abducted Muhammad Waqas deceased have not been recovered from the possession of the petitioner. According to the prosecution case, the motive behind the occurrence was that the petitioner has to pay some amount to Muhammad Waqas deceased and as the deceased demanded the said amount from the petitioner, therefore, his murder was committed by the.
Petitioner and his co-accused but the abovementioned motive was not alleged in the FIR and the same has been introduced after three days from the occurrence. Moreover, no specific amount, which was payable by the petitioner to the deceased has been mentioned in the supplementary statement of the complainant. No witness in the presence of whom the said amount was handed over to the petitioner by the deceased has been mentioned in any statement of the prosecution witnesses. Neither any stamp paper nor any receipt in respect of the abovementioned amount has been produced before the I.O or taken into possession by the Investigating Officer vide any recovery memo. It is also noteworthy that the Investigating Officer vide zimnee N6.16, dated 22.12.2023, has concluded that the petitioner was merely present while empty handed at the spot at the time of occurrence. No danda has been recovered from the possession of the petitioner.
Keeping in view all the abovementioned facts, the prosecution case against the petitioner requires further probe and inquiry.
5. In the light of above discussion, the instant bill petition is accepted and the petitioner is admitted to post arrest bail subject to his furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs.5,00,000/,- (Rupees five hundred Thousand Only) with two sureties each in the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court.