KHALID MAQSOOD vs THE STATE
This matter arises from a bail petition filed by Khalid Maqsood seeking post-arrest bail in a criminal case involving a burn incident resulting in death. The core legal question concerns whether the petitioner's case falls within the scope of further inquiry under subsection (2) of section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, given the conflicting statements, a statement attributed to the deceased stating the petitioner tried to save her, and differing conclusions by the investigating agency. The Lahore High Court held that the case warranted further inquiry under section 497(2), accepting the petition and granting bail to the petitioner subject to surety bonds. The key principle laid down is that where the investigation casts doubt on the veracity of the prosecution's allegations, including a dying declaration, and indicates the petitioner attempted to rescue the victim, the case becomes one of further inquiry, entitling the accused to bail.
- Whether a case becomes one of further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 when the investigating agency finds the dying declaration doubtful?
- Is an accused entitled to post-arrest bail if investigation reports suggest he attempted to save the deceased rather than commit the offense?
- Section 497(1), Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 497(2), Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
' Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner has been falsely implicated, that in fact the deceased tried to commit suicide and in that process petitioner tried to save her but he was also burnt, that on the order of this Court, he has placed on record medico-legal report of present petitioner, that dying declaration is a fabricated one and that case has been found to be doubtful by the Investigating Agency. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed on record medico legal report of the present petitioner, which shows that he was also burnt in this case.
2. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State submits that there is dying declaration of the deceased, that petitioner is named in the F.I.R., that there was no question of false implication of the present petitioner, that petitioner was medically examined later on, on 6-9-2003 and that offence alleged against the petitioner falls within the ambit of section 497(1), Cr.P.C.
3. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. In the instant case, father of the deceased Shakeela Akhtar, namely, Muhammad Younas lodged the F.I.R. On 14-8-2003 about an occurrence which took place on 12-8-2003, he was not an eye-witness. According to the judicial record, the deceased made dying declaration on 15-8-2003 but there is also a paper which has been signed by.
Shakeela Akhtar in which she had A categorically stated that she had sprinkled the kerosene oil on her body and thereafter, got her burnt and Khalid Maqsood petitioner tried to save her and in that process he was also burnt. I have also gone through the case diaries. According to the investigation conducted by Abdul Sattar. S.-I., which is a detailed one, he has found the dying declaration to be of a doubtful nature, he also came to the conclusion that case against the petitioner is false, thereafter, the matter was investigated by Ch. Mushtaq Ahmad, D.S.P.
Investigation Circle, Faisalabad, he also verifies the investigation of Abdul Sattar S.-I. But stated in the last Zimnee that the matter is left at the mercy of the Court.
' After having heard learned counsel for the parties, going through the judicial file and the case diaries, I am of the considered' opinion that case of the present 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 bond to the tune of Rs,50,000 (fifty thousand) with two sureties in the like amount to the satisfaction of trial Court.