GHULAM MURTAZA alias KALA vs THE STATE
The petitioner sought post-arrest bail in case F.I.R. No. 83 of 1999 registered under sections 458, 380, and 109 of the Pakistan Penal Code at Police Station Saddar, Vehari, for allegedly abetting house trespass and theft. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to bail on the grounds of a contradictory supplementary statement changing the prosecution story and on the basis of the rule of consistency, given that co-accused had already been enlarged on bail. The Lahore High Court held that the material contradiction in the supplementary statement brought the case within the scope of further inquiry under section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, and that the petitioner was equally entitled to bail under the rule of consistency as his co-accused had already been released. The court laid down the principle that a substantial change in the prosecution narrative via a supplementary statement warrants further inquiry for bail purposes, and co-accused are entitled to bail on parity grounds.
- Does a contradictory supplementary statement changing the prosecution story bring a case within the ambit of further inquiry for bail?
- Is an accused entitled to post-arrest bail on the ground of parity when co-accused facing similar allegations have already been released on bail?
- Section 458, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 380, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 109, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 161, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
' Petitioner seeks his post-arrest bail in case F.I.R. No,83 of 1999, dated 3-3-1999 registered under section 458/380/109, P.P.C., at Police Station, Saddar, Vehari.
2. The facts of the prosecution case are that the complainant Muhammad Khurshid on 3-3-1999 made a statement before the police that he alongwith his wife and minor daughter was sleeping in his house, whereupon Muhammad Aslam armed with Sota, Ibraheem armed with pistol, Siddique armed with pistol entered into the house of the complainant and demanded keys and money from the complainant. The complainant and his wife raised hue and cry which attracted the P.Ws., whereupon the above named accused fled away. It was also stated by the complainant that the above said information and instigation was given to abovesaid accused persons by Ghulam Murtaza alias Kala (the present petitioner).
' Later, on 5-3-1999 the complainant moved a written application to the Superintendent of Police, Vehari to the effect that the police had wrongly narrated the facts in the F.I.R., and the true facts were that four persons entered into the house of the complainant by scaling over the wall.
Muhammad Siddique pointed out his pistol towards the complainant whereupon Muhammad Aslam caught hold the wife of the complainant and demanded keys from the complainant and his wife and threatened them that they would kill them. Meanwhile, the other co-accused also entered into the house of the complainant and started beating the complainant and his wife, they took away Rs,2,000 of the complainant which were lying under the pillow (Sarhana) of the complainant.
The accused persons also started searching the house and they also threatened the complainant to hand over to them rupees seven lacs which he had received from the sale of land as Ghulam Murtaza alias Kala (the present petitioner) had told them about the sale. It was further stated that Ibraheem, co-accused of the petitioner, also started the search of the boxes of the complainant.
Thus, upon the hue and cry of the complainant and his wife Khalil, Abbas (P.Ws.) and other people were attracted who caught Aslam, Ibraheem and Siddique at the spot alongwith their respective weapons whereas the other co-accused ran away. After the abovesaid application, the complainant was medically examined and supplementary statement of the complainant under section 161, Cr.P.C., was recorded and offence under section 380, P.P.C. Was added.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that during the investigation, complainant made a supplementary statement before the police in which he changed the entire story of the prosecution. Further submits that the co-accused of the petitioner have already been released on bail and the case of the petitioner is at par with them, hence, he is also entitled to the concession of bail.
4. Heard. File perused.
5. Admittedly in the supplementary statement of the complainant recorded by the police during the investigation on 5-3-1999, the entire prosecution story narrated in the F.I.R., has been changed.
This fact alone is sufficient to bring the case of the petitioner within the ambit of further enquiry.
Even otherwise, the co-accused of the petitioner have already been released on bail by this Court vide order, dated 8-6-1999 in Criminal Miscellaneous No,961-B of 1999 and the case of the petitioner is at par with that of his co-accused, hence, he is also entitled to the concession of bail keeping in view the rule of consistency. Accordingly, petitioner is admitted to bail subject to furnishing bail bonds to the tune of Rs,50,000 with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of learned trial Court.