MUNAWAR alias MUNAWARI Versus THE STATE
This matter arises from a post-arrest bail petition filed by the petitioner Munawar alias Munawari in a criminal case registered under Section 302/34 read with Section 109 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 at Police Station Mandi Ahmadabad District Okara. The core legal question was whether the petitioner made out a case for further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, given that his name did not appear in the First Information Report, his implication occurred through a belated statement by an eye-witness after three months, medical evidence did not support the weapon attributed to him, and the complainant had omitted him from a subsequent private complaint. The Lahore High Court accepted the petition and held that the circumstances of the case clearly constituted a case of further inquiry, warranting the grant of bail. The key principle laid down is that where an accused is implicated belatedly without corroboration from medical evidence or the primary complaint, and the State does not oppose bail on the basis of further inquiry, the accused is entitled to post-arrest bail.
- Does a belated statement by an eye-witness implicating an accused not named in the First Information Report constitute a case for further inquiry?
- Whether discrepancy between medical evidence and the weapon attributed to an accused justifies the grant of post-arrest bail?
- Is an accused entitled to bail when the State concedes that the circumstances of the case call for further inquiry?
- Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 34, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 109, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
Munawar alias Munawari alongwith another Munawar alias Dooni stands involved in crime Report No. 197 under section 302/34 read with section 109 P.P.C. registered with Police Station, Mandi Ahmadabad District Okara on 11-9-2001 at the instance of one Abbas Ali.
On being arrested by the police on 20-12-2001, the petitioner preferred his post-arrest bail application before a learned Sessions Judge at Depalpur, who declined him the relief by virtue of his order dated 31-5-2002 on the basis of reasons embodied in the order itself. Now by the instant petition, he has approached this Court seeking same relief.
3. Both the sides have been heard at length. Admittedly, name of the petitioner does not figure in the First Information Report. He stood implicated in the case on the basis of statement made by Mst. Fauzia after about three months of the occurrence. She made this statement as' an eye-witness. Occurrence in this case took place on 11-9-2001. In this view of the matter she made this statement at a belated stage of investigation. She specifically alleged that the petitioner was armed with a .12 bore gun, whereas his co-accused Munawar alias Doni was armed with a .30 bore pistol. Contents of post-mortem report do not reveal that injury on the deceased had been caused by the discharge of a .12 bore gun. No injury on the person of Asghar Ali deceased was attributed to the petitioner by her. Abbas Ali-complainant instituted a private complaint against Ghulam Musatafa, Muhammad Tufail, Muhammad Irshad, whose names are mentioned in the F.I.R., and two others, namely, Arif Ali and Mst. Fauzia. Maker of the F.I.R. even in the complaint did not name the petitioner as an accused. Learned counsel for the State submits that circumstances revolving around this matter call for further inquiry and that in these circumstances, he is not in a position to oppose grant of bail to the petitioner.
4. For all these reasons, I am of the firm view that case of further inquiry is made out. Accordingly, by accepting this application, I direct that the petitioner be released from custody subject to this furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs.50,000 with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of trial Court.
H.B.T./M-1905/L Bail granted.