MUHAMMAD ALI Versus THE STATE
This is a criminal petition filed by Muhammad Ali seeking post-arrest bail in case F.I.R. No. 210 registered under Section 302/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 at Police Station Shalimar, Lahore, for the murder of Shahid Kamran. The core legal question revolves around whether the petitioner is entitled to post-arrest bail where his name was not in the initial F.I.R., was later introduced via a supplementary statement subsequently disowned by the complainant, eye-witnesses were absent from the inquest report, and the trial had not commenced despite a significant lapse of time. The Lahore High Court accepted the petition and held that the petitioner has made out a case for further inquiry, granting him post-arrest bail. The key principle laid down is that where the complainant disowns a supplementary statement implicating an accused whose name was omitted from the initial F.I.R., and where material eye-witnesses are not mentioned in the inquest report and trial is delayed, the case falls within the ambit of further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, justifying the grant of bail.
- Whether post-arrest bail can be granted when the accused's name does not figure in the initial first information report?
- Does a complainant's disowning of a supplementary statement implicating the accused provide sufficient ground for bail?
- Is the absence of eye-witnesses' names from the inquest report a relevant factor for further inquiry under criminal law?
- Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 34, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
Muhammad Ali, petitioner seeks post‑arrest bail in case F.I.R. No.210 dated 25‑7‑2000 under section 302/34, P.P.C. registered at Police Station Shalimar, Lahore at the behest of Muhammad Ali son of Fayyaz Ali for the murder of Shahid Kamran, brother of his wife on 25‑7‑2000. It was registered against unknown persons. Later on petitioner and Muhammad Farooq stood implicated on the basis of a supplementary statement of the complainant recorded on the day of occurrence. After being arrested on 3‑8‑2000 he moved his application before the learned Sessions Judge, Lahore who entrusted the same to a learned Additional Sessions Judge for adjudication purposes. The said learned Additional Sessions Judge after considering totality of facts and circumstances of the case dismissed his application by virtue of his order, dated 22‑12‑2001 containing a variety of reasons for refusal thereof. Now he has approached this Court by filing the instant petition seeking same relief.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner's name does not figure in the F.I.R., that it was an unseen occurrence and police thereafter cooked up statements of Muhammad Saleem, Arshad Hussain and Zawar Hussain out of which Arshad and Zawar Hussain claim to be eye‑witnesses of the occurrence. He submits that it was a patent fabrication on the part of the police and that Muhammad Ali, son of Fayyaz Ali maker of the F.I.R. has disowned has supplementary statement, recorded by the police. He .has testified to the innocence of the petitioner in this case. He submits that case of the petitioner falls within the ambit of further inquiry, that petitioner is behind the bars since 3‑8‑2000, that names of the so‑called eye‑witnesses are not mentioned in the inquest report and they also do not hail from the locality of occurrence.
3. Conversely, learned counsel for the State after due consultation of investigation record submits that he is not in a position to controvert contentions raised by learned counsel for the petitioner. He concedes that a case, for bail is made out. He adds that challan in this case was not put in Court even after one year of the occurrence.
4. I have heard and considered respective arguments of both the sides. Admittedly name of the petitioner does not figure in the first information report. He was implicated in the case on the basis of a supplementary statement, allegedly made by the complainant on 25‑7‑2000 at about 5‑00 p. m. He introduced name of the petitioner and also of Muhammad Farooq as killers of Shahid Kamran. Now the latest position in this matter is that he has disowned the same by appearing before the learned Additional Sessions Judge and this fact is mentioned by the said A.S.I. in his order, dated 22‑12‑2001. Petitioner is behind the bars for the last about eighteen months and trial has not commenced as yet. Arshad Hussain and Zawar Hussain do not belong to the locality of occurrence. Their names are also not mentioned in the relevant column of inquest report. Complainant had appeared before this Court on 18‑2‑2002. He submitted that he neither made supplementary statement nor furnished names of Arshad and Zawar Hussain.
5. By accepting this petition I direct that the petitioner be released from custody subject to his furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs.50,000 with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court.
H.B.T./M‑1004/ ?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Bail granted