WASIM RIAZ vs THE STATE
This matter concerns a post-arrest bail application filed by the accused, Wasim Riaz, who was charged with house trespass and robbery. The prosecution alleged that the accused and an accomplice entered the complainant's house, stole valuables including cash and gold ornaments, and were identified by the complainant. The core legal question was whether the accused was entitled to bail given the circumstances of the case, specifically the significant delay in lodging the First Information Report (F.I.R.) and the nature of the recovery made. The Court held that the case against the applicant was fit for the grant of bail. The ratio of the decision rests on the fact that the F.I.R. was delayed without a convincing explanation, and the only recovery attributed to the accused was a remote control of negligible value, with no other stolen valuables recovered. Consequently, the Court granted bail, emphasizing that the broad features of the case, including the weak explanation for the delay and the lack of significant incriminating recovery, warranted the applicant's release on bail.
- Does a significant, unexplained delay in lodging an F.I.R. constitute a ground for the grant of bail?
- Is the recovery of a trivial item, without the recovery of other alleged stolen valuables, sufficient to deny bail to an accused?
- Can a bail application be granted when the prosecution concedes that the evidence is weak?
ORDER
' According to prosecution case as put in the F.I.R. Muhammad Bashir was sleeping in his house during night in between 29 and 30-7-2002. At about 4-00 a.m. Two persons equipped with T.T.
Pistol and Khanjar entered into the house after climbing over the wall. One of them was identified as Wasim Riaz son of Muhammad Siddique beimg neighbourer of the complainant. They took away the valuables including cash Rs,25,000 golden ornaments, one mobile phone and one remote control. The complainant lodged F.I.R. With the Ibrahim Haidri Police on 1-8-2002 at 3-15 p.m. Explaining the delay by saying that he had been searching privately.
2. During investigation Wasim Riaz was arrested on 5-8-2002. He is said to have produced remote control of Panasonic T.V. On 12-8-2002. One other person namely Abid was arrested but was released afterwards as the complainant did not confirm him to be the culprit in the identification parade.
3. The bail plea of the applicant failed before the learned trial Court. Therefore, present application has been filed.
4. Applicant's learned Advocate has, contended that the F.I.R. Is delayed and the explanation advanced in respect thereof is not convincing. He further argued that the remote control allegedly produced by the applicant has been foisted upon him. According to him its cost is only Rs,100 to Rs,200 and is available in the market. Had the applicant produced the robbed articles some valuables must have been recovered if he was the culprit? It has also been argued that there had been altercation between the applicant and complainant Muhammad Bashir two days before the F.I.R.
5. Learned State Counsel concedes to the bail plea saying that the F.I.R. Is delayed and the alleged recovery is not of much, significance in the circumstances.
6. In view of the broad features specially the delay in the F.I.R. Explanation that the complainant had been searching for privately despite identification of one of the culprits and recovery of only remote control without further clue about any other valuable articles, the case of applicant is fit for bail.
' . He shall be released on furnishing surety in the sum of Rs,50,000 with P.R. Bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court.