2005 PLP 648 (YLR)

‑‑S.497(2)‑‑‑Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S.302‑‑‑Bail, grant of‑‑‑Further inquiry‑‑ Matter wets reported to police two days after occurrence and accused was named in F.I.R. in supplementary, statement made thereafter on the same day‑‑‑Cause of decals of deceased, according to the Doctor, was due to asphyxia resulting from drowning while statement of complainant was that accused, along with other, caused death of the deceased‑‑‑No motive was attributed to accused and it was not a case of eye witness account‑‑‑Investigating Officer had declared accused innocent‑‑‑Case of further inquiry falling under S. 497(2), Cr. P. C. having been made out, accused was allowed bail, in circumstances. Arif Chaudhry for Petitioner. Ch. Nazir Ahmad, for the State. Bashir A.S.‑I. with Record. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that in spite of the fact F.I.R. was registered two days after the occurrence but name of the present petitioner was not mentioned in the F.I.R., that there is no eye‑witness in this case, that later on, complainant made a supplementary statement though on the same day but named the present petitioner, that case was also investigated by Khalid Mehmood, D.S.P. (Investigation), Okara, who had verified the investigation of earlier Police Officer and had given 10 reasons for innocence of the present petitioner and according to his investigation present petitioner was found to be innocent. Argues that according to post‑mortem report, the death of the deceased took place due to asphyxia caused by drowning. Concluding his arguments, he submits that there is no injury on the person of the deceased, that case of the petitioner is of further inquiry falling under subsection 2 of the section 497, Cr.P.C. and he is entitled for the grant of bail.

2. On the other hand, while opposing the prayers for bail made by the petitioner, learned State counsel submits that though the petitioner was not named in the F.I.R. but he was named by the complainant in the supplementary statement on the same day, that there was no mala fide on the part of the complainant who named the petitioner as one of the accused and moreover opinion of the D.S.P. (Investigation) is not binding on this Court.

3. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. According to the F.I.R., occurrence had taken place on 20‑4‑2004 while the matter was reported to the police by Muhammad Akram brother of the deceased on 22‑4‑2004, he also gave the supplementary statement on the same day i.e. 22‑4‑2004 named the present petitioner as one of the accused but the fact remains that according to‑ octor the cause of death of the deceased was due to asphyxia caused by drowning. Moreover, the statement of the complainant was that petitioner along with Nasreen Bibi and Mehmood Ahmad caused the death of the deceased. No motive is attributed to the present petitioner, he is not named in the F.I.R., it is not a case of eye‑witness account and moreover, Khalid Mehmood, D. S. P. (Investigation) Okara has declared the petitioner innocent. Under these circumstances, case of further inquiry falling under subsection (2) of section 497, Cr.P.C. is made out in favour of the present 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. H. B. T./G‑R8/L Bail granted.