MUHAMMAD IQBAL Versus State
This matter concerns a petition for post-arrest bail in a murder case registered under sections 302/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The petitioner was not named in the initial FIR but was later implicated through statements recorded under sections 161 and 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, alleging abetment. The Supreme Court examined the evidence, noting significant discrepancies between the statements of witnesses regarding the location and circumstances of the alleged conspiracy. Specifically, the Court observed that the witnesses provided conflicting accounts of where the petitioner instigated the co-accused, and no overt act was attributed to the petitioner regarding the actual commission of the murder. Finding that the evidence against the petitioner required further investigation, the Court held that the case fell within the scope of section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. Consequently, the Court allowed the appeal and granted post-arrest bail to the petitioner, establishing the principle that material contradictions in witness statements regarding the prosecution's theory of conspiracy warrant the grant of bail for further inquiry.
- Does a significant discrepancy in witness statements regarding the location of an alleged conspiracy constitute grounds for further inquiry under section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Can bail be granted where no overt act is attributed to the accused in the commission of the murder?
- Is a case considered one of further inquiry when the prosecution's witnesses provide conflicting accounts of the conspiracy?
- Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 34, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 161, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 164, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 497(2), Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
MANZOOR AHMAD MALIK, J.--- The petitioner has called in question the order dated 11.04.2017 whereby his petition for bail after arrest in case FIR No. 297 of 2015, offence under sections 302/34, P.P.C., registered at Police Station Ferozewala, District Gujranwala, was dismissed.
2. The FIR in this case was got registered by Syed Ghazanfar Ali Gillani. Petitioner is not named in the FIR. It was on 07.12.2015 that Mst. Sidra Batool, the daughter of one of deceased namely Syed Mohsin Ali Shah Gillani implicated the petitioner in her statement recorded by police under section 161, Code of Criminal Procedure with the allegation that he (petitioner) abetted the murder of her father and his mureed. She based her statement implicating the petitioner on the information imparted to her by Muhammad Farooq Ata and Naveed Ahmad. Thereafter, one Muhammad Mansha voluntarily surrendered before police on 26.04.2016 and got recorded his statement under section 164, Code of Criminal Procedure before a learned Magistrate on 28.04.2016 wherein he too implicated the petitioner for abetting the murder of two deceased.
3. We have heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for complainant/respondent No.3 and learned Law Officer at some length, and have perused the available record with their assistance.
4. It has been noted by us that this incident took place on 31.08.2015 at 8.00 p.m. and reported to police on the same day at 9.30 p.m. by Syed Ghazanfar Ali Gillani, nephew of one of the deceased namely Syed Mohsin Ali Shah Gillani. Thereafter, on 07.12.2015, statement of Mst. Sidra Batool, daughter of Syed Ghazanfar Ali Gillani, was recorded by police under section 161, Code of Criminal Procedure wherein she narrated a different story as against the contents of FIR and alleged that behind the scene abetment was provided by the petitioner and that this fact was disclosed to her by two witnesses namely Muhammad Farooq Ata and Naveed Ahmad. Consequent thereto, the police recorded the statements of Muhammad Farooq Ata and Naveed Ahmad on 08.12.2015, wherein they stated that in their presence, the petitioner asked his co-accused to commit the murder of Syed Mohsin Ali Shah Gillani and gave them the assurance to manage the consequences of that murder. However, both the witnesses have not assigned any reason for their belated disclosure of this fact to Mst. Sidra Batool except that they were frightened. Another alleged piece of incriminating evidence against the petitioner is the statement of Muhammad Mansha recorded on 28.04.2016 under section 164, Code of Criminal Procedure, wherein he stated that he and others were sitting in his Dera where petitioner came and instigated him and other co-accused to kill Syed Mohsin Ali Shah Gillani and as a result of that instigation, he along with other co-accused went to the place where the alleged occurrence took place; that he remained outside and the other co-accused went inside to kill Syed Mohsin All Shah Gillani, whereafter they came back. It is surprising to note that as per Muhammad Farooq Ata and Naveed Ahmad, the conspiracy was hatched by the petitioner at his own Dera, whereas in his statement, Muhammad Mansha disclosed that he and his other co-accused were provoked by the petitioner at his (Mansha's) Dera. There is no overt act (so far as actual occurrence is concerned) attributed to the petitioner in both the aforesaid statements. Considering all these circumstances, we are of the opinion that petitioner's case is one of further enquiry falling within the ambit of section 497(2), Code of Criminal Procedure. Therefore, this petition is converted into an appeal and the same is allowed. Appellant Muhammad Iqbal is admitted to bail after arrest subject to his furnishing bail bond in the sum of Rs. 200,000/- (Rupees two hundred thousand) with one surety in the like amount, to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court.
MWA/M-33/SC Bail granted.
Cited by 1 case
- Mst. Erum Naz W/O Javed & Another vs The State 2024 SHC 1246