JAHANGIR vs THE STATE
This petition concerns an application for post-arrest bail filed by the petitioner, Jahangir, in relation to a criminal case registered under sections 148, 302, 324, and 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to bail given the existence of three conflicting versions of the incident presented during the investigation, which created uncertainty regarding his culpability. The Court observed that the initial FIR listed the petitioner as a witness, while subsequent versions provided contradictory accounts of his involvement. Additionally, the Court noted discrepancies between the medical evidence and the allegations, as well as an affidavit from the deceased's brother exonerating the petitioner. Holding that the petitioner's guilt required further inquiry, the Court granted post-arrest bail. The key principle laid down is that where multiple conflicting versions of an incident exist and the investigation does not conclusively establish the petitioner's role, the case falls within the scope of further inquiry, justifying the grant of bail under the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898.
- Does the existence of multiple conflicting versions of an incident during investigation entitle an accused to bail?
- When does a case against an accused fall within the purview of further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Can an affidavit from a complainant or victim's relative be considered during bail proceedings?
- Section 148, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 324, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 149, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 497(2), Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
' Through this petition Jahangir petitioner has sought post-arrest bail in case F.I.R. No,451 registered at Police Station Tandlianwala, District Faisalabad on 17-6-2002 for offences under sections 148/302/ 324/149, P.P.C. The petitioner is an accused person in a cross-version of the said criminal case recorded for offence under sections 148/324/149, P.P.C.
2. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and going through the record it has been noticed that so far three versions of the same incident have been advanced during the investigation of this case.
' The first version is contained in the F.I.R. And according to that version of the incident the present petitioner was a prosecution witness and not an accused person. The second version was advanced by the father of Barkat Ali deceased namely Muhammad Ali and also by one Zafar Iqbal according to whom the petitioner had effectively fired at Barkat Ali deceased. The third version of that very incident was advanced by Khalid, an accused person in the above mentioned F.I.R., and according to that version the present petitioner had ineffectively fired at the said Khalid. According to that version the petitioner had not fired at Barkat Ali deceased. In these circumstances the question as to which version is actually correct is a matter which shall be decided by the learned trial Court on the basis of the evidence to be led before it during the trial and for the time being the matter regarding culpability of the petitioner requires further probe. It has also been pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner was not directly connected with the motive set up in the F.I.R. Or the cross-version; the medical evidence contradicts the allegation against the petitioner inasmuch as according to the cross-version the petitioner was armed with a gun but the postmortem examination of the dead body of Barkat Ali deceased showed that a bullet had been recovered from that dead body; and an affidavit has been sworn by Shaukat Ali, a brother of Barkat Ali deceased, to the effect that the allegation against the present petitioner is incorrect. The investigation of this case has already been finalized and, thus, continued custody of the petitioner in jail is not likely to serve any beneficial purpose at this stage.
3. For what has been discussed above the case against the petitioner calls for further inquiry into his guilt within the purview of subsection (2) of section 497, Cr.P.C. This petition is, therefore, allowed and the petitioner is admitted to bail subject to furnishing bail Bond in the sum of Rs,1,00,000 (Rupees one hundred thousand only) with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court.
Cited by 1 case
- AHMAD NAWAZ vs THE STATE and 4 others 2007 YLR 1041