AURANG ZAIB vs THE STATE
This matter comes before the Lahore High Court through a criminal bail petition filed by Aurang Zaib seeking post-arrest bail in a double murder case registered vide F.I.R. concerning the deceased Muhammad Yunis and Sabir. The core legal question is whether the petitioner is entitled to bail under the rule of further inquiry when all eye-witnesses named in the challan, including the complainant, have been declared hostile and exonerated the accused during trial. The court held that since the material eye-witnesses did not support the prosecution case and exonerated the petitioner, a case for further inquiry falling under subsection (2) of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 was made out. Consequently, the petition was accepted and the petitioner was admitted to bail subject to furnishing appropriate sureties.
- Is a petitioner entitled to post-arrest bail under section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 when eye-witnesses examined in the challan case are declared hostile?
- Does the exoneration of an accused by the primary eye-witnesses and the complainant make the case one of further inquiry?
- Section 497(2), Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 161, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that there are two deceased, namely, Muhammad Yunis and Sabir, that case was got registered on the statement of Lal Din, who is father of Sabir deceased, that challan has been submitted, that eye-witnesses, namely, Muhammad Younis, Umar Draz and Lal Din have exonerated the present petitioner and during the trial they were declared hostile, that as far as, Ali Ahmad eye-witness is concerned, neither his statement under section 161, Cr.P.C. Was recorded by the police during the course ofinvestigation nor he was produced by the prosecution, the F.I.R. Was lodged on 15/16-8-2002, but now, one Ashfaq, who is, father of Muhammad Yasin deceased had filed a complaint on 21-5-2003 in which Muhammad Ameer and Muhammad Zaman P.Ws'. statements were recorded as preliminary evidence, although till today no summon or warrant has been issued against the present petitioner, that all the witnesses have exonerated the present petitioner, so his case is of further inquiry falling under subsection 2 of section 497, Cr.P.C.
2. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State concedes that all the eye-witnesses mentioned in the challan case were declared hostile and they have not supported the prosecution case.
3. Heard. Record perused. As all the eye-witnesses including the complainant, who is father of Sabir deceased have exonerated the petitioner, therefore a case of further inquiry falling under subsection (2) of section 497, Cr.P.C. Is made out in favour of the present petitioner. In this view of the matter, 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.
Cited by 2 cases
- Naimatullah and 11 others vs Faizullah and 2 others 2021 PLD Balochistan 15
- Rasheed Ahmed vs Muhammad Asim and another 2020 [M] C L R 684