BAGHA alias BAGHEE Versus State
This matter concerns a petition for post-arrest bail filed by the petitioner, Bagha alias Baghee, who was implicated in a murder case. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to bail under the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, given that he was not named in the initial First Information Report (F.I.R.). The petitioner argued false implication, lack of injury attribution, and that his case fell under the category of further inquiry. The Court, upon reviewing the record, noted that while the petitioner was not in the F.I.R., he was subsequently named by the complainant and three eye-witnesses. Furthermore, incriminating recovery was effected from the petitioner, and he had a criminal history involving three other cases. The Court held that the petitioner failed to make out a case for bail, noting that the investigation had concluded, the challan had been submitted, and the charge had been framed. Consequently, the petition was dismissed, reinforcing the principle that bail is not a matter of course when there is sufficient incriminating material and a history of criminal involvement.
- Does the absence of a petitioner's name in the initial F.I.R. automatically entitle them to bail?
- Can a history of prior criminal involvement be considered when deciding a bail application?
- Is bail appropriate when the challan has been submitted and the charge has been framed in a murder case?
- Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that petitioner is not named in the F.I.R., that he has been falsely implicated in this case, that recovery has been supplied by the complainant party, that he is not attributed any injury and that his case is of further inquiry falling under sub-clause (2) of section 497, Cr.P.C.
2. Learned State Counsel submits that recovery has been effected from the petitioner, that he is one of the accused, who along with three others committed the murder of the deceased, that challan has been submitted, charge has been framed and evidence has been summoned.
3. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. Though the petitioner is not named in the F.I.R. but he is named in the statement made by the complainant on the next day of the occurrence and all the three eye-witnesses. The other eye-witness, namely Ghulam Rasool has also named the petitioner, recovery has also been effected from him, he is already involved in three other cases, two of theft and one of causing hurt, he has been found guilty by the police, challan has been submitted, charge has been framed, evidence has been summoned, no case for bail is made out; therefore, this petition is dismissed.
H.B.T./B-97/L Petition dismissed.