MUZAFAR HUSSAIN vs THE STATE
The petitioner sought post-arrest bail in case F.I.R. No. 118 registered at Police Station Kot Samba for offences under sections 337 and 367 read with section 511 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the petitioner made out a case for further inquiry under subsection (2) of section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The Lahore High Court held that the unexplained delay of two days in reporting the matter, a statement by the complainant in favor of the petitioner sixteen days after the occurrence, the failure of the investigating officer to record the statement of the victim, and the omission of the victim's name from the calendar of witnesses in the report under section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 brought the case within the purview of further inquiry. The court admitted the petitioner to post-arrest bail and directed the District Police Officer to hold an inquiry against the delinquent police officials.
- Whether delayed reporting of an FIR and failure to record the statement of the victim constitute grounds for further inquiry under section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Can an accused be granted post-arrest bail when the name of the star witness is omitted from the calendar of witnesses under section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Section 337, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 367, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 511, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 173, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
' The petitioner has sought his post-arrest bail in case F .1. R. No.118 , registered at Police Station Kot Samba, on 11-5-2003, for offences under sections 337/367 read with section 511, P.P.C.
2. Succinctly, the allegation against the petitioner is that on 9-5-2003, he attempted to abduct Muhammad Bilal for the purpose of unnatural offence, however. His attempt was foiled by the complainant and the P.Ws.
3. The petitioner was arrested in this case on 26-5-2003 and has been sent to the judicial lock-up after completion investigation.
4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record of the case. It .Has been noticed that the matter was not reported to the police for two days after the alleged occurrence; on 27-5-2003 i.e. 16 days after the occurrence the complainant of the case stated in favour of the petitioner; the statement of the victim Muhammad Bilal has not been recorded by the investigating Officer; in challan/report submitted under section 173, Cr.P.C. The name of Muhammad Bilal has not been mentioned in the calendar of witnesses. In these circumstances, the allegation against the petitioner needs further probe and inquiry within the purview of subsection
(2) of section 497, Cr.P.C. Therefore, I admit the petitioner to bail, subject to his furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rupees Fifty Thousand, with one surety, in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court.
5 However, before parting with this order I would like to record my disappointment vis-a-vis the investigation of the case. It is most unfortunate that the Investigating Officer did not record the statement of the star witness Muhammad Bilal. I fail to understand how this case would proceed further. A copy of this order would be sent to the District Police Officer, Rahim Yar Khan, who would personally hold an inquiry, take action against the delinquent police officials and submit his report to the Deputy Registrar (Judicial) of this Bench, within three weeks. Disposed of.