MAZHAR IQBAL vs THE STATE
The petitioner Mazhar Iqbal sought post-arrest bail in case F.I.R. No. 271 dated 7-8-2003 registered under Section 398 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 at Police Station Kot Momin, District Sargodha. The core legal question revolved around whether the petitioner was entitled to post-arrest bail given that he was not named in the initial F.I.R., his name surfaced only through a delayed supplementary statement after one month without an identification parade, no recovery was made from him, and he had been behind bars for six months as a previous non-convict. The Lahore High Court held that the petitioner's case fell within the purview of further inquiry under subsection (2) of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. Consequently, the court accepted the petition and admitted the petitioner to post-arrest bail, establishing that a delayed supplementary statement implicating an unnamed accused without identification tests, coupled with the absence of recovery and statutory pre-trial incarceration, warrants further inquiry under Section 497(2), Cr.P.C.
- Whether an accused not named in the F.I.R. and implicated through a delayed supplementary statement is entitled to post-arrest bail?
- Does the absence of recovery from an accused bring his case within the scope of further inquiry under subsection (2) of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Whether the lack of an identification parade for an unnamed accused affects the evidentiary value of his subsequent implication for bail purposes?
- Section 398, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 497(2), Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
' Petitioner Mazhar Iqbal through the instant petition has sought for post-arrest bail in case F.I.R.
No.271 dated 7-8-2003 under section 398, P.P.C. Registered with Police Station, Kot Momin, District Sargodha.
2. Briefly the prosecution case as per F.I.R. Is that on the night between 6/7-8-2003 at about 01-45 a.m. Five unknown persons have scaled over the wall of the complainant's house and trespassed into the same and three out of them awake him up while two persons remained standing with his wife Mst. Zamurd. The three persons gave him blows with iron rod and fists. He received injury on the left side of his nose. On their alarm, Muhammad Afzal and Muhammad Ejaz were attracted to the spot and on seeing them they fled away. They did not make any demand from the complainant during the incident.
3. It has been contended on his behalf that he has falsely been roped in; that he is not named in the F.I.R.; that his name has been figured in the supplementary statement of the complainant recorded on 6-9-2003 and the same was after about one month of the alleged incident; that he was not put to any identification test; that the complainant's supplementary statement carries no value in the eye of law; that nothing was recovered from his possession; and that no independent witness has supported the incident.
4. Conversely the learned State counsel has opposed the petition.
5. I have considered the submissions made from both the sides with the help of available record.
6. The fact remains that he is not named in the F.I.R.' The fact also remains that he was not put to any identification parade/test. His name for the first time has figured in the supplementary statement of the complainant recorded on 6-9-2003. It, thus, was about one month after the alleged incident. The question of evidentiary value of such statement requires serious consideration.
6. Admittedly no recovery of any kind was effected from him. His case,lherefore, is open to further inquiry into his guilt within the purview of subsection (2) of section 497, Cr.P.C.
7. He is stated to be behind the bars for the last about six months and a previous non-convict, which has - not been controverted by the other side.
8. In these circumstances, I find him entitled to bail. The petition, therefore, is accepted and he is admitted to bail subject to his furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs.1,00,000 (Rupees one lac) with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court.