Bail---Meaning and scope of "further inquiry"---

P L D 2004 Supreme Court 822

If the statements of prosecution witnesses were accepted by the Trial Court same would result in conviction of the accused, therefore, instead of embarking upon the facts of the case in detail, lest same may cause prejudice to the case of any of the parties, on the given facts and circumstances of the case, the accused was not entitled to be released on bail on the ground of "further inquiry"--­Principles.

If the statements of prosecution witnesses are accepted by the Trial Court it would result in conviction of the petitioner, therefore, instead of embarking upon the, facts of the case in detail, lest it may cause prejudice to the case, of any of the parties, on the given facts and circumstances of the case, the petitioner is not entitled to be .released on bail on the ground of "further inquiry".

There would hardly be a case which would not require "further inquiry" therefore, this element, by itself, is no ground for granting .bail under subsection (2) of section 497, Cr.P.C. Such orders are, on their very face illegal which do not fulfil the second condition regarding tentative opinion about the prima facie guilt or otherwise of the accused.

Every hypothetical question, which can be imagined, would not mean that it is a case of further inquiry simply for the reason that it can be answered by the Court subsequently after evaluation of evidence. Broadly speaking, the condition-laid down in clause (2) of section 497, Cr.P.C. is that there are sufficient grounds for further inquiry into his guilt which means that the question should be such which has nexus with the, result of the case and may show or tend to show that accused is not guilty of the offence with which he is charged.