GUL MUHAMMAD and otherss vs THE STATE
This matter concerns three applications for pre-arrest bail filed by the accused in a case registered under the Offences Against Property (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979 and the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the applicants were entitled to pre-arrest bail given the circumstances of the FIR, which alleged that 53 named individuals committed robbery and arson. The court held that the applicants were entitled to pre-arrest bail, confirming the interim bail previously granted. The court reasoned that the FIR suffered from an inordinate, unexplained delay of nearly seven months. Furthermore, the court found it humanly impossible for the complainant to identify 53 individuals by name and parentage, noting that the allegations were general rather than specific. The court also highlighted the existence of deep-seated enmity and a prior murder case between the parties, suggesting the potential for false implication. The key principle laid down is that where an FIR contains general allegations against a large, improbable number of accused persons and is lodged with significant, unexplained delay amidst admitted inter-party hostility, a case for pre-arrest bail is established.
- Does an inordinate, unexplained delay in lodging an FIR constitute a ground for granting pre-arrest bail?
- Can pre-arrest bail be granted when an FIR contains general allegations against a large number of accused persons?
- Is the existence of prior, deep-seated enmity between parties a relevant factor in determining the probability of false implication for bail purposes?
- Section 17, Offences Against Property (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance 1979
- Section 324, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 436, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 427, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 148, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 149, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 114, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 22-B, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
1. ' MUHAMMAD AFZAL SOOMRO, J.---By this common order, I intend to dispose of these three bail before arrest applications arising out of Crime No,3 of 2005 of Police Station, Rasheed Wagan registered under sections 17/3 Offences Against Property (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979, sections 324 D.O., 436, 427, 148, 149 and 114, P.P.C. Bail plea of the applicants was declined on 28-3- 2004 and 20-4-2005, by the trial Court.
2. ' Brief facts of the prosecution case are that complainant party is already on inimical terms with accused/applicants on some matrimonial dispute as well as murder dispute. On 30-6-2004, complainant along with his son Aurangzeb and grand son Sanaullah and Khalid were available in the house when at 7-00 p.m. 53 accused persons nominated in the F.I.R. Which include the present applicants and five unidentified accused fully armed with deadly weapons like guns, hatchets, spades etc. Tresspassed in the house of complainant and at the instance of accused Muhammad Hassan, Abdul Ghafoor and Azeem and other accused fired at complainant party but they escaped taking shelter of walls whereafter, all the accused broke down the portion of house and took away articles detailed in the F.I.R. Viz. Gold ornaments, TV, Washing Machine, Paddy, licensed weapons, clothes, pedestal fan, trunks etc. From the house of complainant P.W. Mukhtiar Ali, Nusrat Hussain, Surukhdin and Noor Ahmed and took away the same in 10/11 doneky carts. It is further alleged in the F.I.R. That the accused also set on fire the tube well and then left the scene of offence by chanting slogans. Then the F.I.R. Was lodged on the orders of learned Sessions Judge Larkana, on application under section 22-B, Cr.P.C.
3. ' I have heard learned counsel for the respective parties and perused the material brought on record. It is contended by learned counsel for the applicants that there is inordinate delay of 6 months and 28 days in lodging the F.I.R., that it is unbelievable that complainant can identify as many as 53 persons with their names, parentage and also weapons carried by 53 persons; no specific role has been assigned to the applicants but there is general allegations against the applicants as well as co-accused that they robbed property of complainant, Mukhtiar Ali, Nusrat Ali, Surukhuddin and Noor Ahmed. Learned counsel further submit that after investigation the police came to conclusion that no incident has taken place, therefore, case was disposed of in B-Class hence the Investigating Officer has not believed the' version of complainant. Learned counsel further submit that prior to this on 28-6-2004 applicant/accused Muhammad Hassan lodged the report being Crime No,13 of 2004 at Police Station Rasheed Wagan regarding the murder of his three sons namely Manzoor Ali, Rahib and Naimatullah against the complainant of the case in hand therefore, false implication of the present applicants/accused in the false case cannot be ruled out. It was further argued that no ash was secured from the place of Wardat which could substantiate the claim of the complainant that accused party set on fire that wooden material and tube well. Learned counsel lastly argued that in fact the case is result of previous hostility filed by the applicant/accused party and that complainant wanted to harass and pressurize the accused party in order to withdraw from said murder case. On all these submissions learned counsel submitted that this is a fit case for confirmation of bail before arrest.
4. ' Mr. Shaikh Habib-ur-Rehman, learned Asstt. A.-G. Submits that names of applicants appear in the F.I.R. And they have robbed the valuables of complainant hence they are not entitled to bail.
5. ' I have carefully considered the arguments of learned counsel for the respective parties and properly assessed the material brought before me. It appears that complainant had nominated in the F.I.R. 53 persons which include the present applicants/accused and five other unidentified persons. It is humanly impossible to recognize such a huge number of persons with their names, parentage and the weapon. There are general allegations levelled against all the accused persons.
6. The accused persons admittedly did not repeat the fire which shows that they had no intention to cause death of anybody. The delay in lodging of F.I.R. Is also pretty long period of 7 months which is not plausibly explained. Admittedly there is old standing murder dispute between the parties there, at this stage it cannot be ruled out that the applicants/accused have been involved in this case due to enmity.
7. ' For what it has been discussed above, I am of the considered opinion that substantial grounds have been raised by which the applicants/accused have been able to make out a case for grant of pre-arrest bail. Accordingly, by a short order dated 30-6-2005 interim pre-arrest bail granted earlier was confirmed on same terms and conditions and above are the reasons for the same.
8. ' Cr. Bail Applications Nos.201, 218 and 336 of 2005 stand disposed of.