MUHAMMAD RAFIQUE vs THE STATE
This criminal petition concerns an application for post-arrest bail filed by the petitioner, Muhammad Rafique, who was implicated in a murder case involving the death of Liaquat Ali and injuries to others. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to bail under the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, given that he was not named in the initial First Information Report, was declared innocent by two separate investigating officers, and no incriminating recoveries were made from him. The Court held that the petitioner's case fell within the scope of further inquiry as contemplated by the statute. Consequently, the Court accepted the petition and granted bail, reasoning that the delay in naming the petitioner in the supplementary statements, combined with the findings of innocence by multiple police investigators and the lack of recovery, created sufficient grounds for relief. The key principle laid down is that where investigation reports consistently find an accused innocent and the initial F.I.R. omits the accused despite a known relationship, the case warrants the grant of bail under the further inquiry clause.
- Does the omission 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?
- Can the court grant bail when multiple police investigators have declared the accused innocent during the investigation phase?
- Is an accused entitled to bail when no incriminating recovery has been effected from them?
- Section 497(1), Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 497(2), Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 87, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 88, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
' It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that F.I.R. Was lodged by Muhammad Siddique for the murder of his son Liaquat Ali and for causing injuries on his person and also on the person of his wife, Bashiran Bibi, that only Shahbaz was named in the F.I.R. While the present petitioner was not named therein, that supplementary statements of the witnesses were recorded on 15-2-2002 in which name of the petitioner and two others was given, that one Islam, Inspector had declared the petitioner innocent in this case on 7-4-2002, that nothing incriminating was recovered from the petitioner and that 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 submits that though the name of the petitioner is not mentioned in the F.I.R. But in the supplementary statement name of the petitioner has been mentioned by the complainant, that he was father of Ghazala whose daughter was married with Liaqat Ali deceased; divorce had taken place, motive was attributed to him and the offence falls within the ambit of section 497(1), Cr.P.C.
3. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the case diaries. In the instant case, only Shahbaz was named in the F.I.R. And it was also stated son of unknown while Shahbaz is son of the present petitioner, daughter of the present petitioner was married with Liaquat Ali but later on, relations between the parties became strained and divorce took place. Had the petitioner been present at the spot then Muhammad Siddique complainant could have given the name of the present petitioner in the F.I.R. Because he was father-in-law of Liaquat Ali deceased, on 15-2-2002, an application was submitted by Bashiran Bibi wife of Muhammad Siddique complainant, in which she had named the present petitioner as an accused but in fact the supplementary statement of Mst. Bashiran Bibi and Muhammad Siddique complainant were recorded on 18-4-2002 in which they both named the present petitioner as one of the accused.
Earlier investigation of the case was conduced by Islam, S.H.O./Inspector, who declared the present petitioner as innocent in this case on 7-4-2002, even D.S.P. Kamokee investigated the case and according to his case diary, petitioner did not join the investigation, so he directed that proceedings 87/88, Cr.P.C. Be initiated against the petitioner, thereafter, the investigation was entrusted to Ahmad Khan, S.-I. Range Crime, who came to the conclusion that petitioner is innocent in this case. No recovery has been effected from the petitioner. To my mind, case of the 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 bonds to the tune of Rs,50,000 (Fifty thousand) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of trial Court.