ABDUL KHALID vs THE STATE
This matter concerns a criminal bail application filed by the applicant, Abdul Khalid, seeking post-arrest bail in a case registered for dacoity under Section 395/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The applicant was accused of committing dacoity at a mobile phone shop on 18-11-2003, with the First Information Report (F.I.R.) being registered on 23-11-2004. The core legal question was whether the applicant was entitled to bail given the significant delay in the registration of the F.I.R., the absence of recovery from the applicant's possession, and the reliance on hearsay evidence. The Court observed that the F.I.R. was lodged more than one year after the alleged incident without a plausible explanation. Furthermore, noting the lack of direct evidence and the State's concession regarding the applicant's entitlement to bail, the Court held that the applicant had made out a sufficient case for relief. Consequently, the Court granted post-arrest bail to the applicant, subject to the furnishing of a surety bond in the amount of Rs. 1,00,000 to the satisfaction of the trial court.
- Does an unexplained delay of over one year in the registration of an F.I.R. constitute valid grounds for granting post-arrest bail?
- Is bail appropriate where the prosecution case relies solely on hearsay evidence and no recovery is made from the accused?
- Section 395, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 34, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 154, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
1. ' MUHAMMAD AFZAL SOOMRO, J.---By this order I intent to dispose of Criminal Bail Application filed on behalf of applicant Abdul Khalid son of Abdul Haq, in a case bearing Crime No,607/04, registered at Police Station Korangi, for an offence under section 395/34, P.P.C. The bail plea of the applicant was declined by the learned IVth Additional Sessions Judge, Karachi East.
2. ' The prosecution story as unfolded in the F.I.R. Is that on the eventful day i.e, 23-11-2004, complainant Muhammad Ismail appeared at Police Station Korangi and lodged. F.I.R. Bearing No,67 of 2004. The case against the applicant is that on 23-11-2004 he was arrested along with Madani Ahmed, Mehtab Ali, Rizwan alias Ludoo and Irfan Choudhery and during 'investigation it was disclosed that on 18-11-2003 in the month of Ramzan on 22nd Ramzan at the time of Aftari at Korangi No,3 Area 0, applicant along with four other persons has committed dacoity on gun-point at the shop of mobile phone, and from the shop taken away the mobile phone Nokia, Ericson, cash amount, watch, repeater-12 bore of Security guard. On identification A.S.-I. Muhammad Arif along with other officials reached on the above address and pointed out Shop No,33 and admitted their crime. A.S.-I. Recorded the statement under section 154, Cr.P.C. Of the complainant Ismail Ali who was also present in the shop. The complainant also resides in the same area and having his own business of mobile phones. Complainant was informed about the dacoity by his servant Asif on mobile phone. On 22-11-2004 when complainant was present in the shop five accused named above brought in police custody. They pointed out complainant's shop and admitted that on 18-11- 2003 they committed dacoity. The Police also recorded the statement of complainant.
3. ' The investigation followed in due course applicant was sent back to stand trial in the Court of IVth Additional Sessions Judge Karachi East.
4. I have heard the learned counsel for the respective parties and perused the record. It has been contended by the learned counsel for the applicant that the case against his client is false who has been involved in the background, of enmity and under suspicion. It has also been contended that the incident took place on 18-11-2003 and F.I.R. Was registered on 23-11-2004, after the delay of more than one year and five days without any explanation. Nothing was recovered from the possession of present applicant. Learned counsel further argues that there is no direct evidence and the entire case is based upon the hearsay evidence. On all these scores it has been contended by the learned counsel for the applicant thatit is a fit case where the applicant could be enlarged on bail. In support of his arguments learned counsel for the applicant relied upon Karim Haider and another v. The State, 1986 SCM R 938 and Munir Ahmed v.The State 2003 PCr.LJ 758. As against the argument of the learned counsel for the applicant it has been contended by the learned counsel for the State concedes to the above legal position and has no objection of the concession of bail could not be extended to the applicant.
5. ' For what has been discussed above, I am of the considered opinion that the learned counsel for the applicant has been able to make out a case for bail which is granted provided if he furnishes surety in the sum of Rs,1,00,000 (One Lac) and P.R. Bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court. Criminal Bail No,90 of 2005 stands disposed of as such.