ABDUL MAJID and another vs THE STATE
This matter arises from a petition for post-arrest bail filed by Abdul Majid and Bashir Ahmad in connection with F.I.R. No. 246 of 1999 registered at Police Station Hujra Shah Muqeem under sections 448, 511, 395, 427, 380, and 337-H(ii), read with sections 148 and 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question concerns whether the petitioners are entitled to bail given their delayed nomination in a supplementary statement after nine months without an identification parade, and allegations of illegal detention. The Lahore High Court held that the delayed naming of the petitioners in the supplementary statement without disclosing the source of knowledge, coupled with the circumstances surrounding their detention, brings their case within the scope of further inquiry under section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The court laid down the principle that an unexplained and delayed supplementary statement implicating accused persons, when viewed alongside potential illegal detention, warrants the grant of post-arrest bail on the grounds of further inquiry.
- Does a delayed supplementary statement recorded months after the FIR without disclosing the source of knowledge justify granting post-arrest bail?
- Whether the lack of an identification parade for unnamed accused subsequently brought via a supplementary statement makes a case for further inquiry?
- Can post-arrest bail be granted when the circumstances of the accused's detention point towards further inquiry into their culpability?
- Section 448, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 511, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 395, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 427, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 380, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 337-H(ii), Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 148, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 149, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
' KHAWAJA MUHAMMAD SHARIF, J.---Abdul Majid son of Abdullah Saleem and Bashir Ahmad son of Kareem Bakhsh seek bail in case registered vide F.I.R. No,246 of 1999 with Police Station Hujra Shah Muqeem, on 7-5-1999 under sections 448/ 511, 395, 427, 380 & 337-H(ii), read with section 148/149, P.P.C.
2. Allegation contained in the First Information Report authored by one Hakeem Zia-ur-Rehman is that he runs his Shafakhana and on the fateful day fourteen persons named in the F.I.R. Armed with deadly weapons along with eight other persons came and demolished his Shafakhana, used force and removed valuables worth thousands of rupees. Motive for the occurrence is stated to be a dispute about the property with Maulvi Yousaf.
3. Post-arrest bail was declined by the Additional Sessions Judge, Okara on 9-3-2000.
4. Learned counsel states that the petitioners were not nominated in the F.I.R. But it was only through supplementary statement recorded on 26-1-2000 after about nine months of the registration of the case, that the complainant named the petitioners and that also without disclosing the source of knowledge regarding their culpability. It is stressed that no identification parade was held since the petitioners were not nominated in the F.I.R. It is further stated that it was only when the petitioners brought a Criminal Miscellaneous No,82-H that the police hurriedly got recorded the supplementary statement so as to save their skin from improperly and illegally detaining the petitioners. Lastly it is contended that Abdul Majid is a student of 8th class and is below the age of 16 years whereas Bashir is 17/18 years of age. Conversely learned counsel for the complainant stated that it is the police who helped the accused party in delaying the investigation and the petitioners are the two persons amongst eight who were said to accompany the accused although not named in the F.I.R. Learned State Counsel submits that four sons of the petitioner Bashir are absconding.
5. We have attended to the arguments of the respective counsels and have also scanned the record.
6. The petitioners for the first time named in the supplementary statement recorded after delay of nine months on 26-1-2000, names of petitioners, without disclosing the source of knowledge from where he had gathered that the petitioners were culpably involved in the commission of offence in which they were indicted. Admittedly an habeas corpus petition was filed on 27-1-2000 for the release of the petitioners contending that they were in illegal and improper detention. The upshot of the discussion keeping all the facts in juxtaposition is that the petitioners have made out a case of further inquiry and probe. Resultantly while accepting the application we exercise our discretion in their favour by allowing bail, provided they furnish security in the sum of Rs,50,000 each with one surety each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Judge.
' Criminal Miscellaneous No,1740/B of 2000 being the same matter as Criminal Miscellaneous No,1412/B of 2000 is disposed of. Copy Dasti.