Usman Ali Versus State
This is a petition for post-arrest bail filed under Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, arising from FIR No. 83/2024 involving offences under Sections 302, 109, and 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The petitioner was not named in the FIR but was later identified during an identification parade as having fired shots at the deceased. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to bail given the conflicting versions of the prosecution case and the fact that the nominated co-accused had already been granted bail. The Court held that the prosecution's case against the petitioner, which relied on an identification parade contradicting the initial FIR, presented a case of further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. Consequently, the Court granted post-arrest bail, noting that the petitioner's continued incarceration served no useful purpose, especially since the nominated co-accused had already been released. The key principle established is that where the prosecution's case rests on conflicting versions emerging from the investigation, the matter warrants further inquiry, justifying the grant of bail.
- Does the emergence of conflicting versions between the initial FIR and subsequent investigation findings constitute a case of further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Is an accused person entitled to bail when the prosecution's case relies on an identification parade that contradicts the initial crime report?
- Does the grant of bail to nominated co-accused persons provide a ground for the release of an accused identified later during the investigation?
- Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 109, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 34, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 54, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 497(2), Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
Order
Ali Zia Bajwa, J .--- Through this petition filed under Section 497 Cr.P.C., the petitioner seeks his post-arrest bail in case FIR No.83/2024, dated 04.02.2024, offences under Sections 302, 109 and 34 P.P.C registered with Police Station Ahmednagar, District Wazirabad.
2. The specific allegation against the petitioner, as stated in the crime report, is that on 04.02.2024 at 6:30 a.m., he, along with his co-accused, while armed with firearms and acting in furtherance of their common intention, committed Qatl-i-Amd of Rukhsar Ahmad, the father of the complainant, by inflicting firearm injuries.
3. Arguments heard and the record perused.
4. It has been straightaway observed by this Court that the petitioner is not nominated in the FIR and the same is lodged by the complainant against two named accused persons i.c. Ali Salman and Tahir Iqbal., along with two unidentified individuals. However, during the course of investigation, it came to light that the occurrence in question was allegedly occurred at the instigation of the nominated accused persons, who are said to have hired the services of the petitioner and one Hamza Jutt to commit the offence. It has further been noticed that the petitioner is the real brother of one of the nominated accused, namely Ali Salman. Subsequently, the petitioner was arrested in connection with the case under Section 54 Cr.P.C. and sent to judicial lock up for test identification parade, which was conducted on 30.03.2024. Notably, the original crime report did not attribute any specific injury inflicted upon the deceased to the unknown accused persons. However, during the said identification parade, the petitioner was surprisingly identified by the complainant and the eye-witness with the role of having fired gunshots at the deceased.
5. In view of the above, the prosecution's case against the petitioner appears to be based on two conflicting versions, one presented in the crime report, and the other emerging from the investigation conducted by the investigating agency. Further reliance can also be placed on the latest dictum laid down by the Supreme Court of Pakistan in case titled "Mujahid Hussain and another versus The State through Prosecutor General, Punjab, Lahore and another" (2024 SCMR 800). All the above narrated facts make the case of the petitioner one of further inquiry falling within the ambit of Section 497(2) Cr.P.C. The guilt of the petitioner and recovery of weapon of offence on his pointing out would be determined by the trial court after recording of evidence.
6. The record reflects that Tahir Iqbal and Ali Salman, nominated accused were granted post-arrest bail by this Court vide consolidated order dated 03.12.2024 passed in Crl. Misc. No. 53146-B of 2024, and apparently such order has not been challenged by the complainant.
7. The petitioner is behind the bars since his arrest. He is no more required to the investigating agency for the purpose of further investigation. No useful purpose would be served while keeping the accused petitioner behind the bars for an indefinite period. Granting bail to an accused person does not amount to his acquittal, rather his custody is handed over from State to the surety, who takes the responsibility to produce that accused before the trial court.
8. Resultantly, the instant bail petition is allowed 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 one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial court.
MQ/U-4/L Bail granted.