MUHAMMAD ADNAN vs THE STATE
The petitioner sought post-arrest bail in a murder case registered under Section 302/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to bail given the material contradictions between the initial First Information Report (F.I.R.) and the complainant's subsequent supplementary statement. The F.I.R. did not name the petitioner, instead attributing the murder to a different individual, while the supplementary statement later implicated the petitioner, presenting an entirely different motive and sequence of events. The Court observed that these conflicting versions created significant doubt regarding the prosecution's case. Furthermore, the petitioner had been incarcerated for over six months. The Court held that the case against the petitioner fell within the ambit of 'further inquiry' under the provisions governing bail. Consequently, the Court allowed the petition and admitted the petitioner to post-arrest bail, establishing the principle that material contradictions between the initial F.I.R. and subsequent statements, which cast doubt on the prosecution's narrative, entitle an accused to the benefit of further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898.
- Does a material contradiction between the initial F.I.R. and a subsequent supplementary statement regarding the identity of the assailant warrant the grant of bail?
- Can an accused be admitted to bail when the prosecution's case rests on conflicting versions of the occurrence?
- Does the absence of an accused's name in the initial F.I.R. constitute grounds for further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 34, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
The petitioner seeks post-arrest bail in a case registered vide F.I.R. No.151 of 2002 dated 19-4-2002 under section 302/34, P.P.C. At Police Station City, Burewala, District Vehari.
2. The above-referred case was registered on a written application of Muhammad Hanif, the complainant, alleging therein that his son Mazhar Saeed was killed by Anwar Farooq son of Abdul Jabar with his Rifle alongwith an unknown person armed with Pistol.
3. Arguments heard. Record perused.
4. It could not be denied that the petitioner was not even named in the F.I.R. And it was stated therein by the complainant that within his view, Muhammad Anwar Farooq son of Abdul Jabar fired on his son Mazhar Saeed with his Rifle which hit him below the left arm-pit, who breathed his last then and there. In the meanwhile said Anwar Farooq alongwith an unknown person slipped away from the place of occurrence alongwith their respective weapons and the motive was also alleged against said Muhammad Anwar Farooq to the effect that his previous were Mst. Shaheen Yasmin after having obtained divorce from him through a Court of law, married with the deceased Mazhar Saeed. When confronted with this story of the complainant, it is stated by the learned counsel for the complainant as well as the State that the complainant was in a state of shock because of brutal murder of his son, therefore, he could not give a true account of affairs, however, on the same day, he got recorded his supplementary statement and submitted that in fact, the present petitioner was responsible for the murder of his son with a Rifle and the motive attributed to him was to the effect that his deceased son was earlier marred to Mst. Nasim Akhtar daughter of Bashir Ahmad and during the subsistence of this marriage, his son married Mst. Shaheen Yasmin and said Mst. Nasim Akhtar had developed illicit relations with her brother-in-law namely Abdul Aziz whereupon his deceased son asked the said Abdul Aziz not to come to his house. He has also instructed his were not to visit the house of said Abdul Aziz. This has caused annoyance to her who after having consulted her nephew Muhammad Adrian (petitioner) had given the Rifle .222 owned by the deceased Mazhar Saeed to the petitioner who killed him. Both the versions given in the F.I.R.
And the supplementary statements are absolutely in conflict with each other. Even the report of the Forensic Science Laboratory regarding the Rifle used in the occurrence advantageously by the petitioner is behind the bars for the last more than 6 months.
5. From the above, I have gathered an E impression that the case of the petitioner falls within the ambit of further inquiry in the context of section 497(2), Cr.P.C. Resultantly, instant petition is allowed by admitting the petitioner to post-arrest bail subject to furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs.2,00,000 (Two lac) with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court.
Cited by 1 case
- SHAFI MOHAMMAD Versus State 2017 YLRN 317