Haji AHMAD NAWAZ vs THE STATE
The petitioner, Haji Ahmad Nawaz, sought post-arrest bail in case F.I.R. No. 224 of 2001 registered under section 489-B of the Pakistan Penal Code at Police Station Karor, District Layyah, concerning allegations of dealing in counterfeit currency. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to bail when no recovery of counterfeit currency was made from him and the only evidence connecting him to the crime consisted of statements made by co-accused persons before the police. The Lahore High Court held that statements of co-accused persons made before the police are prima facie inadmissible in evidence, and in the absence of any independent incriminating material or recovery from the petitioner, the case called for further inquiry under subsection (2) of section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. Consequently, the court admitted the petitioner to post-arrest bail subject to the furnishing of surety bonds, laying down the principle that uncorroborated police statements of co-accused without independent corroboration or recovery warrant further inquiry for the grant of bail.
- Whether the statement of a co-accused recorded before the police constitutes admissible evidence against an accused person?
- Does the absence of any recovery from an accused coupled with reliance solely on co-accused statements bring a case within the scope of further inquiry under subsection (2) of section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Is an accused entitled to post-arrest bail when no independent incriminating evidence is available on record?
- Section 489-B, Pakistan Penal Code
- Section 497(2), Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
' Haji Ahmad Nawaz petitioner has sought his post-arrest bail in case F.I.R. No,224 of 2201 registered at Police Station Karor, District Layyah on 23-10-2001 for an offence under section 489-B.C, P.P.C.
2. It was alleged in the F.I.R. That Masroor Ahmad, Inspector/S.H.O. Received a secret information that the petitioner dealt with in counterfeit currency and was in possession of a huge amount of fake currency. On receipt of the report the complainant inspector formulated a raiding party and arrested two persons namely Khalid Mehmood and Muhammad Ramzam co- accused and allegedly recovered counterfeit currency from the possession of Khalid Mehmood co-accused.
3. The petitioner was arrested in this case on 10-11-2001 and admittedly nothing was recovered from him at the time of his arrest nor any counterfeit currency was recovered during the physical remand.
4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also perused the record. It has been admitted that except for the statements of Ramzan and Khalid Mehmood co-accused before the police there is no independent incriminating evidence available against the petitioner to the effect that he had been dealing in counterfeit currency or used the sane for the purchase of any commodity. Prima facie the statement of co-accused before the police is not admissible evidence.
5. In these circumstances the allegation . Against the petitioner needs further probe and inquiry within the purview of subsection (2) of section 497, Cr.P.C. Therefore, I admit the petitioner to bail subject to his furnishing bail bond in the sum of Rs, 1,00,000 (Rupees one hundred thousand only) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court.