ZAFAR IQBAL Versus THE STATE
This is a post-arrest bail application filed by the petitioner, Zafar Iqbal, who was charged under Section 302/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for the murder of Muhammad Nazir. The core legal question before the Court was whether the petitioner was entitled to the grant of bail given the conflicting statements made by the complainant regarding the identity of the assailant. Initially, the F.I.R. attributed the fatal shot to the petitioner; however, a subsequent supplementary statement by the complainant identified a co-accused, Nadeem Taimoor, as the person who fired the shot. Furthermore, the police investigation concluded that the petitioner was innocent. The Court held that the contradiction between the initial F.I.R. and the supplementary statement, coupled with the investigation's findings, rendered the petitioner's involvement in the crime doubtful. Consequently, the Court admitted the petitioner to bail. The key principle laid down is that where the prosecution's own case contains material contradictions regarding the identity of the accused, and the investigation finds the accused innocent, the case falls within the scope of further inquiry, justifying the grant of bail under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898.
- Does a contradiction between the F.I.R. and a subsequent supplementary statement regarding the identity of the assailant create grounds for further inquiry under bail proceedings?
- Can bail be granted when the police investigation concludes that the accused is innocent?
- When does a criminal case fall under the scope of Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 34, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
Through this application the petitioner seeks bail after arrest in case F.I.R. No. 14 of 2001 registered on 12‑1‑2001 under section 302/34, P.P.C. with Police Station, Kunjah, District Gujrat on the complaint of Shabbir Hussain which took place on the same night at 1‑30 a.m. According to the complainant they are four brothers. On the night of occurrence his elder brother Nazir went to the adjacent house to asleep with the children as their sister and brother‑in‑law had gone to Vaneeke Tarar. In the night at about 1‑30 a.m. the complainant alongwith his ‑father Ali Sher woke up on hearing noise; when came in the courtyard, saw in the light of the bulb Zafar Iqbal accused, who was armed with .12 bore gun, double barrel, was present alongwith two unknown persons armed with fire‑arms whom they can identify, they were quarreling with Muhammad Nazir in the room. The complainant stated that in their presence Zafar Iqbal accused while armed with gun fired at Muhammad Nazir deceased hitting him on the left side of his face who fell down and the accused ran away. The motive of the occurrence was alleged that about 2‑1/2 years ago‑the complainant and Zafar Iqbal had some dispute with each other on which Tajammal Abbas received the injuries and two days ago Muhammad Nazir was threatened by said Zafar Iqbal that they will teach a lesson to him. After the registration of the F.I.R. a supplementary statement, according to the police record, was recorded on 12‑1‑2001 in which he took a different stand and stated that actually Nadim Taimoor co‑accused had fired at the deceased who received the injuries and not from Zafar Iqbal.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the name of the petitioner was mentioned in the F.I.R. and specific role was ascribed to him for causing the main injury on the head of the deceased but subsequently supplementary statement has been made in which Nadeem Taimoor co‑accused was attributed the same injury instead of the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that which one of the statement is correct will be seen at the time of trial and for the time being petitioner's involvement in this case has become doubtful.
3. Learned State Counsel has opposed the bail application on the ground that the petitioner is involved in case which falls within the prohibitory clause and has been specifically named in the F.I.R. and is not entitled to grant of bail.
4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and also perused the record. The complainant in his supplementary statement which is undated has stated that the accused who has fired at the deceased was subsequently found as Nadeem Taimoor. Zafar Iqbal accused had not fired at the deceased. The similar is the position of the other witnesses. In the investigation the petitioner has also been found as innocent. Which one statement of the complainant is correct can be seen at the time of the trial. For the time being case of the petitioner falls under subsection (2) of section 497, Cr.P.C. and involvement of the petitioner for the time being has become doubtful.
5. This application is accepted and the petitioner is admitted to bail after arrest subject to his furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs.2,00,000 (Rupees two lacs only) with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court.
H.B.T./Z-113/L
Bail granted.