WAQAS AHMAD and another vs THE STATE
This petition for leave to appeal challenged an order of the Lahore High Court, which had dismissed the petitioners' application for post-arrest bail in a criminal case registered under sections 148, 324, 337-A(i), and 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The petitioners contended that a 24-hour delay in lodging the First Information Report (F.I.R.) suggested deliberation and warranted further inquiry. The Supreme Court addressed the issue of the delay, noting that the complainant provided a reasonable explanation for the time lapse, citing the necessity of attending to the injured victim and transferring him between hospitals. The Court held that because the petitioners were attributed a specific role in the commission of the offense and a clear motive was established, there was no justification to interfere with the High Court's discretionary order. Consequently, the Court dismissed the petition, affirming that the question of delay in lodging the F.I.R. did not entitle the petitioners to bail at this stage, as the prima facie case against them remained intact.
- Does a 24-hour delay in lodging an F.I.R. automatically entitle an accused to post-arrest bail?
- Is the explanation for a delay in lodging an F.I.R. a matter for deeper appraisal at the trial stage rather than the bail stage?
- Can the Supreme Court interfere with a well-reasoned discretionary order of the High Court regarding bail when a specific role and motive are attributed to the accused?
- Section 148, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 324, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 337-A(i), Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 149, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
' MUNIR A. SHEIKH, J.--- This petition is directed against the order, dated 4-2-2003 of the Lahore High Court, Lahore, through which application for grant of post-arrest bail in case F.I.R. No,436, dated 7- 11-2002 under sections 148/324/337-A(i)/149, P.P.C. Filed by the petitioners has been dismissed.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that there is a delay of 24 hours in lodging the F.I.R., therefore, it is a case of further inquiry, for the F.I.R. Appears to have been lodged after due deliberations.
3. The motive attributed in the F.I.R. Was that the petitioners herein were being tried for causing injuries to Kashif in which they were on bail and had come to pressurize the latter to withdraw the said case. The question of delay in lodging F.I.R. Would be a matter for deeper appraisal and it will not be proper to express any opinion at this stage. Suffice it to say that prima facie the maker of the F.I.R. Has given the explanation that the complainant had been attending to his injured brother who was brought first to Hospital at Gujranwala which referred his case to Mayo Hospital, Lahore.
Since the petitioners have been attributed specific role along with motive, therefore, we are not inclined to interfere in the well-reasoned discretionary order passed by the High Court.
5. For the foregoing reasons, this petition has no merits which is accordingly, dismissed and . revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.
Cited by 5 cases
- Shaikh Ghulam Murtaza Adv vs The State 2023 SHC 890
- HABIBULLAH SHAR vs The STATE 2014 MLD 1454
- BEEJAL & another vs STATE PLJ 2013 Cr.C. (Karachi) 369
- BEEJAL and another vs The STATE 2014 P Cr. L J 261
- AMJAD JAWED Versus State 2007 PLD 336