ABDUL QADIR vs THE STATE
This matter concerns a petition for pre-arrest bail filed by the accused, Abdul Qadir, in relation to an F.I.R. registered under Sections 148, 337-F(v), and 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal questions were whether the unexplained delay in lodging the F.I.R., the presence of a cross-version involving injuries to the petitioner's nephew, and the lack of specific attribution of injuries to the petitioner warranted the grant of pre-arrest bail. The Court held that the eleven-day delay in reporting the incident, the failure of the prosecution to explain why the F.I.R. was not registered immediately upon police knowledge of the cognizable offence, and the suppression of the fact that the petitioner's nephew was also injured and examined on the same day, indicated that the prosecution had not approached the Court with clean hands. Consequently, the Court determined that the case fell within the scope of further inquiry. The petition was allowed, and the ad interim pre-arrest bail was confirmed, establishing that unexplained delays and suppressed cross-versions justify further inquiry for bail purposes.
- Does an unexplained delay in lodging an F.I.R. entitle an accused to the concession of pre-arrest bail?
- Whether the suppression of a cross-version involving injuries to the accused's side warrants the grant of bail?
- Is an accused entitled to bail when no specific injury is attributed to him in the F.I.R.?
- Section 148, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 337-F(v), Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 149, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
' MIAN MUHAMMAD NAJAM-UZ-ZAMAN, J.---Abdul Qadir petitioner seeks pre-arrest bail in case F.I.R.
No,334 of 2005 dated 16-6-2005 registered under section 148/337-F(v)/149, P.P.C. At Police Station Saddar Pakpattan.
2. After hearing learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the State and going through the record, I have observed that the matter was reported to the police after a delay of eleven days whereas the Medico-legal report of the injured witnesses reveal that the injured were taken to the hospital for medical examination on 7-6-2005, why the F.I.R. Was not entered immediately when the police had come to know about the commission of a cognizable offence, is not clear from the record and this fact brings the case of the petitioner within the fold of the further inquiry. Even otherwise, as apparent from record during this occurrence one Naseer Ahmad nephew of the petitioner had also received injuries and on the same day i.e, 7-6-2005 he was also taken to the hospital for medical examination by the police but the F.I.R. As well as the police record is silent in this regard which means that something else had happned and prosecution had not come to the Court with clean hand, thus it is a case of two versions and the question as to which of the party had aggressed is yet to be resolved by the trial Court. Similarly, no specific injury has been attributed to the petitioner and the allegation against him is of general in natural. All these facts accumulatively are sufficient to bring the case of the petitioner within the fold of further inquiry entitling him to the concession of bail. Accordingly, the instant petition is allowed and the ad interim pre-arrest bail already granted to the petitioner vide order dated 27-9-2005 stands confirmed against the same surety.