MUHAMMAD ILYAS Versus THE STATE
This matter concerns a second post-arrest bail application filed by the petitioner, Muhammad Ilyas, in a criminal case. The petitioner sought bail after an earlier application was dismissed based on the incorrect representation by the State that six prosecution witnesses had already been examined. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to bail under the principle of further inquiry, given that the trial had not yet commenced and the only evidence against the petitioner was the 'last seen' theory. Upon calling for a report from the trial court, it was revealed that no witnesses had been examined, contradicting the earlier submission. The Court held that, absent other material evidence, the case against the petitioner required further inquiry. Consequently, the Court accepted the petition and granted bail. The key principle laid down is that where the prosecution misrepresents the progress of a trial or the status of evidence, and the remaining evidence is insufficient to establish a prima facie case, the accused is entitled to the benefit of further inquiry under the relevant provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
- Does the misrepresentation of the status of prosecution witnesses by the State during a bail hearing constitute grounds for reconsidering a dismissed bail application?
- Is the 'last seen' evidence alone sufficient to deny bail when no other material evidence is present on the record?
- When does a criminal case fall within the ambit of subsection (2) of section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 requiring further inquiry?
- Section 265-C, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 497(2), Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
This is second application on behalf of the petitioner. Earlier was dismissed by this Court on 21-1-2003. Relevant paragraph No.3 is reproduced below where the reasons for dismissal are mentioned:--
"It was the petitioner who took the deceased from his house in presence of his father and other P.Ws., Hawai Chappal of the petitioner was also taken into possession from the spot, challan has been submitted, six P.Ws. have been examined. No case for bail is made out. Dismissed."
2. At the time of issuing the notice, I had also called a report from the learned Additional Sessions Judge who is trying the case. According to said report on 29-3-2003 the copies as required under section 265-C, Cr.P.C. were delivered to the accused and the case was fixed for 14-4-2003 for the framing of charge. At this stage learned counsel for the petitioner states at bar that not a single witness has been examined so far. Learned counsel submits further that there is no evidence against the petitioner except that of the father and brother of the deceased to the effect that the petitioner came to the house of the deceased and took him with him and Hawai Chappal of the deceased was taken into possession from the Havaili of the deceased. While dismissing the application of the petitioner it was stated before me by the learned counsel for the complainant that six P.Ws. have been examined so far and that order is dated 21-1-2003 but the report which is dated 8-4-2003 submitted by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, shows that even the charge was to be framed on 14-4-2003.
3. Learned State Counsel while opposing the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner has stated that there is, evidence of last seen and Hawai Chappal recovered from the Havaili of the deceased and according to the finding of the police petitioner was found guilty.
4. After having heard the learned counsel for the parties, I am of the opinion that except the evidence of last seen, there is no other evidence on the record. Had there been any material evidence, the learned State Counsel must have brought to the notice of this Court. Earlier wrong statement has been made by the learned State Counsel that six P.Ws. have been examined, although, till today not a single P.W. has been examined so far. In this view of the matter case of the petitioner falls within the ambit of subsection (2) of section 497, Cr.P.C. which requires further inquiry into the guilt of the petitioner. This petition is accepted and the petitioner is allowed bail in the sum of Rs.50,000 with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of trial Court.
H.B.T./M-1895/L Bail allowed.