GHULAM HUSSAIN vs THE STATE
This matter arises from a criminal petition seeking post-arrest bail filed by the petitioner Ghulam Hussain, who was implicated in F.I.R. No. 103 dated 10-6-2003 registered under sections 324 and 452 of the Pakistan Penal Code at Police Station Gellay Wal, District Lodhran. The core legal questions involve whether the petitioner is entitled to bail given the inordinate delay in lodging the F.I.R., the absence of any overt act or injury attributed to him, his age as an octogenarian, and whether his case falls within the scope of further inquiry under subsection (2) of section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The Lahore High Court held that since no injury or overt act was attributed to the petitioner, and considering the delay and his advanced age, his case warranted further inquiry under section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. Consequently, the court granted post-arrest bail to the petitioner subject to furnishing surety bonds, laying down the principle that the attribution of a mere Lalkara without overt acts or injuries, coupled with mitigating circumstances like age and delay, can bring a case within the ambit of further inquiry for the grant of bail.
- Whether delay in lodging the F.I.R. and lack of attributed overt acts justify the grant of post-arrest bail?
- Does attribution of a Lalkara without any specific injury bring the case within the scope of further inquiry under section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Section 324, Pakistan Penal Code
- Section 452, Pakistan Penal Code
- Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
' Through.This petition, the petitioner has sought for the relief of his post-arrest bail in a case F.I.R.
No,103 of 2003 dated 10-6-2003 registered under sections 324/452, P.P.C. At Police Station Gellay Wal, District Lodhran on the grounds, that he has been falsely implicated in this case; that there is ten days delay in lodging the F.I.R.; that no overt act has been attributed to the petitioner; that only Lalkara has been ascribed to him; that the petitioner's case is covered under subsection (2) of section 497, Cr.P.C. Which needs further inquiry, therefore, he is entitled for the relief claimed for.
2. On the contrary, the learned counsel for the complainant assisted by the learned State Counsel has opposed the petition on the grounds that the petitioner is named in the F.I.R.; that delay in lodging the F.I.R. Has already been explained in the F.I.R.; that commanding Lalkara has been attributed to the petitioner, that the offences complained are applicable against the petitioner and fall within prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C. Therefore, he is not entitled for extraordinary concession of bail.
3. Heard both the parties. Record perused.
4. It evinces from the record that there is more than ten days' inordinate delay in lodging the F.I.R.
To which no plausible explanation is forthcoming on the record. It has also come on the record that no overt act has been attributed to the petitioner nor injury has been ascribed to.Him. As regards the contention of the learned counsel for the complainant that commanding Lalkara has been attributed to the petitioner at the time of commission of crime complained, it cannot be determined at this stage, it will be seen at the time of trial. The learned counsel for the petitioner during the course of his arguments has drawn my attention towards the fact that the petitioner is at the age of octogenerarian. His case is covered under the proviso of section 497, Cr. P . C .
5. As stated above since no injury has been attributed to the petitioner and only part of the petitioner as alleged in the F.I.R. Is that he aimed with his weapon at the relevant time which was snatched. Keeping in view the part ascribed to the petitioner at the time of commission of crime complained, in my view, the case of the petitioner as well as also needs further inquiry into his guilt and falls under section 497(2), Cr.P.C.
6. In this view of above discussion, further detention of the petitioner in judicial lock-up will not serve any useful purpose, therefore, he is held entitled for concession of.Bail subject to furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs,30,000 (Rupees thirty thousand only) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court.