MUHAMMAD AJMAL and others vs THE STATE
The petitioners sought post-arrest bail in a case registered under sections 458, 380, 395, 397, 412, and 109 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 and section 10 of Ordinance VII of 1979, relating to a dacoity incident. The core legal question was whether the petitioners were entitled to bail when they were not nominated in the initial FIR, were implicated after a considerable delay through subsequent supplementary statements involving repeated improvements, and no incriminating recoveries were made from them. The Lahore High Court accepted the petition and held that the petitioners' culpability required further probe and inquiry, as there were no reasonable grounds at this stage to believe they committed the alleged offences. The key principle laid down is that delayed implication through shifting stances and improvements in statements, coupled with the absence of incriminating recoveries, makes a case fit for further inquiry under section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, warranting the grant of post-arrest bail.
- Whether delayed nomination in a supplementary statement after considerable time justifies the grant of post-arrest bail?
- Does the absence of incriminating recoveries from the accused warrant further inquiry into their guilt under section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Whether frequent improvements in witness statements regarding the identity of accused persons create reasonable grounds for further probe entitling them to bail?
- Section 458, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 380, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 395, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 397, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 412, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 109, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 10, Ordinance VII of 1979
- Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 164, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
' The petitioners seek bail in a case registered against them and others vide F.I.R. No,183, dated 12- 5-1997 for offence under sections 458/380 of the P.P.C. At Police Station, Bhawana, District Jhang.
Sections 458/380 of the P.P.C. Were changed with sections, 395/397 vide Zimni dated 12-5-1997.
Sections 412/109 of the P.P.C. And section 10 of Ordinance VII of 1979 were added subsequently.
2. The F.I.R. Was lodged by Shameer Khan son of Ahmad Yar stating therein that on 11-5-1997 he alongwith his family members went to sleep when at about 10 past 12 in the night he got up on hearing some noise and found twelve unknown persons armed with fire-arms present in his house.
They deprived the inmates of the house of cash amounting to Rs,13,600 and gold ornaments; that the accused persons also stole some amount and ornaments from the house of his brother Jahangir; that he raised alarm whereupon his daughter Mst. Taswaar Bibi, Munawar Bibi and Nephew Muhammad Nawaz got up; that Haq Nawaz son of Shahadat Khan and Mumtaz son of Ghulam also reached the spot and tried to apprehend the accused persons; that the accused persons inflicted injuries to the complainant and the P.Ws. And thereafter resorted to firing in the air and then managed to make good their escape.
3. The petitioners' learned counsel contends that the petitioners are not nominated in the F.I.R.; that they were implicated in the case after three years and 6 months when the investigation was entrusted to one Abdul Razzaq, S.I.; that no incriminating recovery had been made from the petitioners; that no identification parade was held in the case; that the only allegation against the petitioners is that Zafar dacoit had committed the offence in consultation with them and that there is no cogent material on the record to connect the petitioners with commission of the offences alleged against them.
4. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the State submits that the petitioners were nominated in the supplementary statement of the complainant recorded on 10-11-2000 and that the offences fall within the prohibitory clause of section 497 of the Cr.P.C.
5. The complainant's learned counsel submits that originally the Police did not conduct the investigation properly and all the accused persons were allowed pre-arrest bail; that subsequently investigation was entrusted to the Crimes Branch; that D.S.P. Crime Branch held the petitioners and their co-accused to be guilty vide Zimni No,115, dated 13-9-2001; that the investigation was entrusted to C.I.A. Police which also held the petitioners to be guilty.
6. There is considerable force in the arguments raised by the petitioners' learned counsel. Originally the petitioners were not named in the F.I.R. Subsequently the complainant stated before the Police on 25-5-1997 that he had himself made some probe into the occurrence and was convinced that the offence was committed by Ashraf son of Muhammad with the help of his unknown companions. It is so mentioned in Zimni No,7, dated 25-5-1997. On 2-7-1997 the complainant stated before the Police that Ibrahim and Nasir were also involved in the case. Subsequently both of them were found to be innocent and were got discharged. Again the complainant party expressed suspicion against Muzaffar alias Zafar Jappa, who was found to be guilty in the investigation conducted by the Crimes Branch, Mst. Tassawar Bibi also implicated him in her statement recorded on 21-12-1997. In this statement she did not level allegation of commission of Zina against Zafar co-accused. Moreover, she did not implicate the present petitioners in the said statement.
Again her statement was recorded on 18-10-2001 during the course of investigation by the S.-I., C.I.A. Jhang. In this statement she had implicated the petitioners as well as levelled allegation of commission of Zina with her by Zafar co-accused. On 24-10-2001 her statement was got recorded by S.I., C.I.A. Under section 164 of the Cr.P.C. She stated that she as well as the other inmates of the house had fully identified the accused persons. In this statement she had implicated the petitioners. Initially the investigation was conducted by the local police which came to the conclusion vide Zimni No, 97, dated 15-12-2000 that the offence was committed by Zafar Jappa with the help of his co-accused and the consultation with the petitioners. The D.S.P. Crimes Branch also held the petitioners to be guilty vide Zimni No,115, dated 13-9-2001. The C.I.A. Police held the Zafar Jappa as well as the petitioners were equally involved in the occurrence.
7. The first version of the occurrence embodied in the F.I.R. Does not mention the name of any accused person. It appears that the complainant party has been implicating different persons from time to time and later on introduced a number of improvements in the case and came forward with the version that Zafar co-accused had committed the offence with the help of the petitioners and others. No incriminating recovery has been effected from the petitioners. So far as Mst. Fateh Bibi petitioner No,4 is concerned, the only allegation against her as that at one stage she had prepared breads for the accused persons. Prima facie, the petitioners culpability requires further probe and inquiry and at his stage there are no reasonable grounds for believing that they had committed the offence alleged against them.
8. Therefore, the petition is accepted and the petitioners are allowed bail, subject to their furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs,50,000 each with one surety each in the like amount to the satisfaction of Judicial/Illaqa Magistrate, Jhang.