HIDAYATULLAH alias HIDOO vs THE STATE
This matter concerns a post-arrest bail application filed by the accused, Hidayatullah alias Hidoo, who is facing trial for robbery and wrongful assembly under the Offences Against Property (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979 and the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the applicant 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 subsequent exoneration of the accused by the prosecution's star witnesses. The court held that the applicant had successfully made out a case for the grant of bail. The ratio of the decision rests on the principle that a 45-day delay in reporting the crime, combined with the filing of affidavits by key eye-witnesses exonerating the accused, creates sufficient doubt regarding the prosecution's case to warrant the release of the accused on bail, particularly when the State counsel concedes the position and raises no objection to the grant of bail.
- Does a 45-day delay in lodging an F.I.R. constitute sufficient grounds to grant bail to an accused?
- Can the filing of affidavits by star prosecution witnesses exonerating the accused justify the grant of bail?
- Is bail appropriate when the State counsel concedes the legal position and raises no objection?
- Section 17(3), Offences Against Property (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance 1979
- Section 148, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 149, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 34, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
1. ' By this order I propose to dispose of bail application moved on behalf of applicant Hidayatullah alias Hidoo by caste Shar, facing trial in Crime No,41/2002, 17(3), Offences Against Property (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979, 148, 149 read with section, 34 P.P.C. The bail plea of the applicant was declined by learned IV-Additional Sessions Jude, Shikarpur.
2. ' The prosecution story as unfolded in the F.I.R. Is reproduced hereunder:--- ' The allegation against the present applicant is that he along with co-accused and three unidentified persons had made wrongful assembly on the link road leading from Chak to Rustam near RHC Hospital and robbed the Motorcycle No,SK-8335 black colour 70, one licensed gun with licence book and cash Rs,3,000 from the complainant, when the complainant was going along with two P.Ws. For look after his children admitted in RHC, Rustam.
3. ' After registration of the investigation followed and in due course the applicant/accused were arrested and sent up to stand trial before the learned trial Court.
4. ' It has been contended by the learned counsel for the applicant that case against his client is false, who have been involved in this false case due to enmity and suspicion. It has been further contended that F.I.R. Is belated for long 45 days and identification of applicant on the source of motorcycle light is a weakest source. It has been further contended that the eye-witnesses of the occurrence have sworn their affidavits exonerating the present applicant from the commission of the crime. Hence, he prayed false implication cannot be ruled out, therefore, the applicant be entitled to grant of bail.
5. ' As against the arguments put forth by the learned counsel for applicant, learned State counsel has conceded the above legal position and raised no objection to the grant of bail.
6. ' Admittedly, there is delay of 45 days in lodging F.I.R. And the star witnesses of the incident have exonerated the applicant from commission of crime by filing affidavits. Hence, I am of the considered opinion that the learned counsel for the applicant has been able to make out a case for bail, provided he furnished solvent surety in the sum of Rs,1,00,000 (one lac) and P.R. Bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of trial Court.
7. ' Criminal Bail Application No,670 stands disposed of.