BILAL Versus State
This matter arises from a bail petition filed by Bilal seeking post-arrest bail in a criminal case. The core legal question is whether the petitioner is entitled to bail when the supplementary statement of the complainant and statements of witnesses under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 do not implicate him, and his case falls under the prohibitory clause or warrants further inquiry. The Lahore High Court held that upon examining the record, the statements of the witnesses did not implicate the petitioner and the investigating officer's contrary assertion was incorrect, thereby making the case one of further inquiry under subsection (2) of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The court allowed the petition and granted post-arrest bail to the petitioner subject to furnishing bail bonds.
- Whether a case falls under further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 when witnesses do not implicate the accused?
- Is an accused entitled to bail when the complainant's supplementary statement exonerates him?
- Whether bail should be granted when the investigating officer makes incorrect assertions regarding witness statements in court?
- Section 497(1), Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 497(2), Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 161, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that though the petitioner was named in the F.I.R. but later on the complainant filed a Constitutional petition before this Court which was disposed of with a direction to the Investigating Officer to record his supplementary statement which was recorded, that according to the said supplementary statement name of the petitioner is not mentioned as an accused and that case of the petitioner does not fall within the prohibitory clause of section 497(1), Cr.P.C.
2. Learned counsel for the State has not been able to controvert the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner.
2-A. Muhammad Idrees S.-I. has appeared along with the record. He informed this Court, in open Court, that there are statements of Hazi Azhar, Liaqat Gujjar and Muhammad Wazir implicating the petitioner in the case. I have myself gone through the supplementary statement and the statements of the above-said three persons. Nazir Muhammad exonerated the petitioner in the supplementary statement. Perusal of the statements of Hazi Azhar, Liaqat Gujjar and Muhammad Wazir shows that neither of them have implicated the petitioner in the said statements recorded under section 161, Cr.P.C. I am sorry to say that S.-I. Muhammad Idrees informed this Court that all the three above mentioned witnesses have implicated the petitioner through their above statements.
3. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, having gone through the record produced by Idrees S.-I. including the supplementary statements, the case diaries and the statements of Hazi Azhar, Liaqat Gujjar and Muhammad Wazir recorded under section 161, Cr.P.C. and having given anxious consideration to the submissions made at the Bar. I am of the considered view that the case of the petitioner is one of further inquiry falling under subsection (2) to section 497, Cr.P.C. Resultantly, this petition is allowed and the petitioner is admitted to bail subject to his furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs.50,000 with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court.
H.B.T./B-94/L Bail granted.