IMDAD ALI vs STATE
This matter concerns a bail application filed by the applicant, Imdad Ali, who was charged under Sections 457 and 380 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, and Section 14 of the Offences Against Property (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance 1979, in connection with a theft case. The core legal question was whether the applicant was entitled to post-arrest bail given the circumstances of the case, specifically the delay in the FIR and the applicant's alleged absconsion. The Court observed that the FIR was lodged with an unexplained delay of eight days. Furthermore, the Court noted that the applicant had been in continuous custody since his arrest in a separate matter in 1999, and that the allegation of absconsion remained to be established at trial. Additionally, no incriminating evidence was recovered from the applicant's possession. Consequently, the Court held that the applicant's case required further inquiry, as there were no reasonable grounds to believe he was guilty of a non-bailable offence at this stage. The bail application was granted subject to the furnishing of solvent surety.
- Does an unexplained delay in lodging an FIR constitute grounds for further inquiry in a bail application?
- Can bail be granted when the allegation of absconsion has not yet been established at trial?
- Is the absence of incriminating recovery from an accused a relevant factor in determining entitlement to bail?
- Section 457, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 380, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 14, Offences Against Property (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance 1979
ORDER
1. The applicant is involved in a case under Sections 457, 380 PPC and 14 Tazir of Offences Against Property (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979 arising out of Crime No, 45 of 1997 of P.S. Dakhan.
2. Complainant Ghulam Hyder lodged FIR on 18.8.1997 stated therein that about 8 days back six Bandits sneaked into their house out of whom he identified four persons namely Imdad, Waris, Shahzado and Ghulam Kadir and the remaining two were unknown. They committed theft of his bullock. He and his inmates wokeup on dog barking and found the culprits taking away their bullock. The complainant approached the nek mards of village and met present accused Imdad who promised to return the bullock, but subsequently he did not fulfill the promise. After 8 days the complainant lodged the FIR. The police took up investigation and submitted challan. The case is pending trial before the Court of Civil Judge and FCM, Garhi Yasin. The bail to applicant is mainly refused on the ground of his absconsion.
3. It is contended by the learned counsel that the applicant had no knowledge of this case and police had never come to serve the process of the Court at any time. It is further contended that the accused was arrested on 7.2.1999 in some other case and since then he is in custody. Nothing incriminating is recovered from the possession of the accused.
4. Mr. Altaf Hussain Surahio Advocate for the State in the above circumstances has stated no objection to the grant of bail.
5. The record reveals that accused was arrested on 7.2.1999 and since then he is in continuous custody. The absconsion of accuse is yet to be established at the time of trial. The case is pending trial in the Court of First Class Magistrate. Nothing incriminating is recovered from the possession of the accused. F.I.R. is delayed by about 8 days and no plausible explanation is furnished by the complainant. Under these circumstances, the case of accused requires further inquiry as at this stage it cannot be said that there are reasonable grounds to believe that the accused is guilty of any Non-Bailable Offence.
6. The accused is granted bail subject to his furnishing solvent surety in the sum of Rs, 1,00,000/- (one lac) and PR bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of trial Court.