SHAUKAT Versus State
The petitioners sought post-arrest bail in respect of offences under sections 457, 380, and 392 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, registered vide F.I.R. No. 115/2007 at Police Station Tibba Sultanpur, District Vehari. The core legal question revolved around whether a case of further inquiry was made out given the inordinate delay in lodging the F.I.R., the subsequent material improvements and inconsistencies in the complainant's supplementary statement, and the reliance on foot tracker evidence. The Lahore High Court held that the glaring inconsistency between the initial F.I.R. and the supplementary statement, alongside the weak nature of the foot tracker evidence, brought the petitioners' case squarely within the scope of further inquiry under section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The court laid down the principle that material contradictions between the initial charge and subsequent statements, coupled with weak circumstantial evidence like foot tracking, make out a proper case for granting post-arrest bail.
- Whether post-arrest bail can be granted when there is an inordinate delay in lodging the F.I.R. and inconsistency with a supplementary statement?
- Is foot tracker evidence considered a weak type of evidence for connecting an accused to a crime?
- Does a material contradiction between the initial F.I.R. and a subsequent supplementary statement make the case one of further inquiry?
- Section 457, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 380, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 392, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
HASNAT AHMAD KHAN, J .---Shaukat Hussain and Ghulam Murtaza petitioners, seek post-arrest bail in case F.I.R. No.115/2007 dated 3-4-2007 registered at Police Station Tibba Sultanpur, District Vehari, in respect of offences under sections 457/380/392, P.P.C.
2. Petitioners were booked in the above mentioned case on the allegation of committing theft at night time. During the investigation the complainant took a somersault and got his supplementary statement recorded wherein he alleged that on the night of occurrence some unknown burglars had barged into his house and robbed him of cash of Rs,55,000. On the basis of said supplementary statement offences under sections 457 and 380, P.P.C. were deleted and instead offence under section 392, P.P.C. was substituted.
3. After hearing the parties and going through the record I have straightaway noticed that the F.I.R. in this case was lodged with an inordinate delay of 13/14 days. I have further noticed that in the F.I.R. it was alleged by the complainant that on the night of occurrence four persons including the petitioners had committed theft of Rs.55,000. It was further alleged in the F.I.R. that the complainant had seen the accused nominated in the F.I.R. while running away from the place of occurrence, however after ten days of the lodging the F.I.R. the complainant made a supplementary statement wherein it was alleged that some unknown accused' had 'committed the offence of robbery after barging into the house of the complainant. It was further alleged that the complainant and his sister in law were roughed up by the robbers. In the said supplementary statement he went on to narrate that after the occurrence the services of foot trackers were hired and on the basis of said evidence the petitioners were involved in this case. As there is a seeming inconsistency between the FIR. and the supplementary statement, the case of the petitioners has become as that of further inquiry. Besides according to the supplementary statement the petitioners were not identified by the complainant rather they were implicated in this case on the basis of evidence of foot trackers which is a weak type of evidence. Be that as it may a case of further inquiry into the guilt of the petitioners has been made out to say the least. Consequently the application in hand is accepted and the petitioners are admitted to post arrest bail subject to their furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs.1,00,000 (Rupees one lac) with one surety each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court.
H.B.T./S-209/L Bail granted.