2002 PLP 83 (MLD)

S. 154

Information in cognizable cases

F.I.R. is not a substantive piece of evidence and is only meant to put the law into motion. Syed Muhammad Asghar Naeem for Petitioner. Zafar Iqbal Chohan for Respondent No.

1. M. Aslam Malik for the State. Through the instant petition, after arrest bail granted to Muhammad Shahbaz alias Jee respondent No.1 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Lahore vide order dated 26-7-2001 in case F.I.R. No. 23 of 2001 dated 26-1-2001, under section 302, P.P.C. registered with Police Station Batapur, has been sought to be cancelled. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner Hadayat Ali got the aforesaid F.I.R. recorded for murder of his sister Mst. Bashiran Bibi on 26-1-2001. No one was nominated as an accused in the said F.I.R. Subsequently, on the same day, he got recorded his supplementary statement nominating Muhammad Shahbaz alias Jee, respondent No.1 as culprit for the offence. In his supplementary statement, he also nominated two persons namely, Muhammad Bashir and Nazir Ahmad as eye-witnesses of the occurrence. The accused was arrested and pistol was also recovered from his possession. Five empty cartridges and the pistol have been sent to Forensic Science Laboratory for comparison. Respondent No. l applied for his after-arrest bail in the said case which was allowed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge vide order dated 26-7-2001 as mentioned above. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that it was a case of single accused. Muhammad Shahbaz respondent No. 1 was nominated by the complainant on the same day through Zimni No.

15. He was arrested and weapon of offence has also been recovered from his possession and there is no mala fide for his false implication. It was an heinous offence and the respondent has been allowed bail on flimsy grounds. Learned counsel has supplemented his arguments by placing reliance on 1998 SCMR 496, Qadar Mand v. Muhammad Amroze and 4 others 1999 SCMR 1794, Raza Mohsin Qazilbash and others v. Muhammad Usman Malik and another and 2001 PCr.LJ 1420 Muhamamd Saleem v. The State. Learned counsel for the State has supported the petition. Conversely, the petition has been opposed by the learned counsel representing respondent No.l by arguing that Muhammad Shahbaz has been falsely implicated after consultation and with deliberation as he was siding with Mst. Bashiran, deceased in a suit filed by her for dissolution of marriage against her husband. Supplementary statement has got no value and no mala fide has been committed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge by granting him bail. Learned counsel has placed reliance on 1995 SCMR 1350, Falak Sher alias Sheru v. The State 1996 SCMR 511, Naeem Akhtar v. State PLD 1995 SC 34, Tariq Bashir and 5 others v. The State and 1999 PCr.LJ 1 Rana Muhammad Safdar w. Gulzar Ali alias Papoo and another. I have given due consideration to the contention raised at the bar and perused the record. It is true that Muhammad Shahbaz, respondent was not nominated accused in the F.I.R. but he was implicated by the complainant on the same day by getting supplementary statement recorded through Zimni No.15 dated 26-1-2001, wherein eye-witnesses of the occurrence have also been mentioned. The petitioner has no previous enmity with the accused for his false implication. The respondent/accused was found guilty during the investigation. Weapon of offence was also recovered from his possession. F.I.R. is not substantial piece of evidence, it is only to put the law into motion. Nothing has been brought on record from the respondent to show any mala fide or previous enmity with the complainant for his false implication. The offence falls under the prohibitory clause. The only ground weighed with the learned Additional Sessions Judge to grant bail is that respondent was not nominated in the F.I.R. and there is discrepancy in the supplementary statement and the F.I.R., which is hardly a ground for grant of bail in a murder case as it requires deeper appreciation of evidence, therefore, I am persuaded to allow this petition and the bail granted to respondent No.l is cancelled and he is ordered to be taken into custody and lodged in jail to face the trial. N.H.Q./H-63/L??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Bail cancelled.