SHAHAMAND and another vs THE STATE
This matter arises from a criminal petition seeking post-arrest bail in a case involving allegations of house trespass, murder, and causing injuries. The core legal question is whether the petitioners are entitled to bail under section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, given that they were found innocent in three successive police investigations and no recovery was effected from them, despite being named in the First Information Report and their case falling under the prohibitory clause. The court held that the petitioners are entitled to bail as they were found innocent during multiple police investigations and nothing was recovered from them. The key principle laid down is that where an accused is found innocent during police investigations and no recovery is made, a case for further inquiry under section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 is made out, warranting the grant of bail.
- Whether an accused found innocent in multiple police investigations is entitled to post-arrest bail?
- Does the absence of any recovery from the accused during investigation justify further inquiry into their guilt under section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Is the opinion of police officials regarding the innocence of an accused binding on the court during bail adjudication?
- Section 497(2), Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 497(1), Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
' According to the allegations levelled in the F.I.R. The petitioners alongwith two others trespassed into the house of the complainant forcibly, dragged Mst. Sughran Bibi daughter-in-law of the complainant. Thereafter, Ahmad Yar his co-accused fired two shots on the person of Mst. Sughran and the third shot was fired by Nazir Ahmad on the person of said Mst. Sughran, who died there and then. It is alleged that both the petitioners had caused injuries on the person of Muhammad Yar complainant.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioners in support of this petition submits that actually the complainant party had killed two birds with one stone, on the one hand they have killed Mst.
Sughran who was allegedly abducted by the present accused party and on the other hand they have falsely involved the petitioners and their co-accused. Learned counsel subniits that in three investigations the petitioners were found innocent and a discharge report was also submitted by the police but the learned Magistrate did not agree with the said report. He submits that the case of the petitioner is covered by subsection (2) of section 497, Cr.P.C. Which requires further inquiry into the guilt of the petitioner.
3. On the other hand, learned State Counsel submits that the petitioners are named in the F.I.R., they have committed a heinous, offence; they were armed with the hatchets and caused injuries on - the vital parts of Ahmad Yar, complainant and their case is covered by the prohibitory clause of section 497(1), Cr.P.C. Moreover he submits that the opinion of the police officials is not binding on the Court.
4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. As far as injuries to the deceased are concerned, these are not attributed to the petitioners as they were alleged to be armed with hatchet but according to the learned State Counsel no hatchet was recovered from the petitioners during the course of investigation. Learned State Counsel does not deny the fact that in three different investigations the petitioners were found innocent and the police prepared a discharge report, however, the same was not agreed by the learned concerned Magistrate. Without commenting on the merits of the case, as the petitioners were found innocent by the police during the course of investigations and nothing has been recovered from them, I allow them bail in the sum of Rs,50,000 with one surety each in the like amount each to the satisfaction of trial Court.