GHULAM QADIR vs THE STATE
This matter arose from a post-arrest bail application filed by an accused implicated in a murder case. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to post-arrest bail under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 on the ground of further inquiry. The Lahore High Court observed that the petitioner was not named in the initial First Information Report (FIR) and was only implicated 13 days later in a supplementary statement recorded by the complainant, which attributed mere presence at the spot without specific roles. Furthermore, no recovery was effected from him, and police investigation concluded that he shared no common intention with the main absconding accused who fired the fatal shot. Holding that the petitioner's case fell squarely within the ambit of further inquiry under Section 497(2), Cr.P.C., the High Court accepted the petition and granted post-arrest bail subject to furnishing bail bonds.
- Whether delayed implication in a supplementary statement recorded 13 days after an FIR entitles an accused to bail under the doctrine of further inquiry?
- Whether an accused who is found to have no common intention with the principal offender and had only mere presence at the spot is entitled to bail under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Section 497(2), Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner was not named in the F.I.R., no specific role was attributed to him, that no recovery was effected from him, that in the supplementary statement dated 19-8-2002 i.e. 13 days after the registration of the F.I.R. Name of the petitioner was mentioned with mala fide intention and that he was also found innocent by the police.
2. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State submits that petitioner was named by the complainant in the supplementary statement, that main accused is still at large, that it was held by the I.O. That petitioner had no common intention with his co-accused and he was merely present at the spot.
3. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. It was Noor Samad main accused, who has caused the death of the deceased by firing at him. He is P.O. Present petitioner was implicated in the supplementary statement by the complainant which was recorded 13 days after the registration of the F.I.R. And only merely presence of the petitioner was shown therein. Moreover, according to the investigation, he has no, common intention with his co-accused. In my considered opinion, case of the petitioner is of further inquiry falling under subsection (2) of section 497, Cr.P.C., therefore, this petition is accepted. Petitioner is allowed bail subject to furnishing bail bonds to the tune of Rs.50,000 (fifty thousand) with two sureties in the like amount to the satisfaction of trial Court. revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.