KHALID MAQSOOD Versus THE STATE
This matter arises from a bail petition filed by Khalid Maqsood seeking post-arrest bail in a criminal case involving charges of burning. The core legal question concerns whether the petitioner's case falls within the scope of further inquiry under subsection (2) of section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, given the existence of conflicting statements, a doubtful dying declaration, and divergent conclusions by the investigating agencies. The Lahore High Court held that the case warrants further inquiry as the investigation cast serious doubt on the veracity of the dying declaration and suggested the petitioner attempted to save the deceased while sustaining burn injuries himself. Consequently, the court accepted the petition and granted post-arrest bail to the petitioner subject to furnishing surety bonds. The key principle laid down is that where the investigative findings and conflicting dying declarations render the charge doubtful, the accused is entitled to the concession of bail under the provisions for further inquiry.
- Whether post-arrest bail can be granted when the investigating agency finds the case against the accused to be doubtful?
- Does a conflicting statement or doubtful dying declaration make out a case of further inquiry under section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 497(1), Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner has been falsely implicated, that in fact the deceased tried to, commit suicide and in that process petitioner tried to save her but he was also burnt, that on the order of this Court, he has placed on record medico legal report of present petitioner, that dying declaration is a fabricated one and that case has been found to be doubtful by the Investigating Agency. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed on record medico legal report of the present petitioner, which shows that he was also burnt in this case.
2. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State submits that there is dying declaration of the deceased, that petitioner is named in the F.I.R., that there was no question of false implication of the present petitioner, that petitioner was medically examined later on, on 6‑9‑2003 and that offence alleged against the petitioner falls within the ambit of section 497(1), Cr.P.C.
3. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. In the instant case, father of the deceased Shakeela Akhtar, namely, Muhammad Younas lodged the F.I.R. on 14‑8‑2003 about an occurrence which took place on 12‑8‑2003, he was not an eye‑witness. According to the judicial record, the deceased made dying declaration on 15‑8‑2003 but there is also a paper which has been signed by Shakeela Akhtar in which she had categorically stated that she had sprinkled the kerosene oil on her body and thereafter, got her burnt and Khalid Maqsood petitioner tried to save her and in that process he was also burnt. I have also gone through the case diaries. According to the investigation conducted by Abdul Sattar S.‑I., which is a detailed one, he has found the dying declaration to be of a doubtful nature, he also came to the conclusion that case against the petitioner is false, thereafter, the matter was investigated by Ch. Mushtaq Ahmad, D.S.P. Investigation Circle, Faisalabad. he also verifies the investigation of Abdul Sattar S.‑I but stated in the last Zimnee that the matter is left at the mercy of the Court.
After having heard learned counsel for the parties, going through the judicial file and the case diaries, I am of the considered opinion that case of the present petitioner is of further inquiry falling under subsection (2) of section 497, Cr.P.C., therefore, this petition is accepted. Petitioner is allowed bail subject to furnishing bail bond to the tune of Rs.50,000 (fifty thousand) with two sureties in the like amount to the satisfaction of trial Court.
N.H.Q./K‑17/L Bail allowed.
Cited by 1 case
- ISRAR AHMED vs The STATE 2018 MLD 1142