IKRAM-UL-HAQ vs THE STATE
The petitioner sought post-arrest bail in case F.I.R. No. 391 of 2005 registered under sections 380, 170, 419, and 420 of the Pakistan Penal Code at Police Station Ghulam Muhammad Abad, Faisalabad. The core legal question was whether the petitioner made out a case for the grant of post-arrest bail considering the facts and circumstances. The Lahore High Court held that the petitioner was entitled to bail primarily because there was an unexplained delay of two and a half months in lodging the F.I.R., the petitioner was a first-time offender not previously convicted, the trial had not yet commenced despite the petitioner being in judicial custody since his arrest, and the alleged offences did not fall within the prohibitory clause of section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The court accepted the application and granted post-arrest bail subject to the furnishing of surety bonds, establishing that statutory non-prohibitory offences coupled with delayed reporting and untried detention favour the grant of bail.
- Does an unexplained delay of two and a half months in lodging the F.I.R. make the prosecution story doubtful enough to warrant post-arrest bail?
- Whether an accused is entitled to bail when the offences charged do not fall within the prohibitory clause of section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 and the trial has not commenced?
- Does the absence of previous criminal convictions support the grant of bail in non-prohibitory offences?
- Section 380, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 170, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 419, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 420, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
' SYED SAKHI HUSSAIN BOKHARI, J.---The petitioner has applied for post-arrest bail in case F.I.R.
No,391 of 2005, dated 1-6-2005 under sections 380, 170, 419, 420, P.P.C. Registered at Police Station, Ghulam Muhammad Abad, district Faisalabad.
2. The brief facts of the case are that Muhammad Iqbal, complainant submitted application before police that petitioner used to reside in his "Baithic" and that he pretended himself as police Inspector. He stated that 2-1/2 months back petitioner along with his co-accused (Rana Mubarak ) took Rs,1,86,000 from him, Muhammad Hanif, Shaukat Ali and Mustafa through fraud and that later on he came to know that petitioner is not a police Inspector. Also that petitioner took away his licensed pistol. On his application present case was registered against the petitioner and he was accordingly arrested on 28-6-2005. Hence this bail application.
3. I have heard the arguments and perused the record.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case. Further submits that there is delay of 2-1/2 months in lodging the F.I.R. And the same has not been explained by the complainant, which makes the prosecution story doubtful. He contended that nothing was recovered from the petitioner. He further contended that petitioner is in judicial lock-up since 28-6-2005 but trial has not commenced so far. He has argued that petitioner is not previous convict and that offence does not fall within the prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C., therefore, petitioner deserves concession of bail.
5. On the other hand learned counsel for the State has opposed this application on the grounds that petitioner is named in F.I.R.; that he took away Rs,1,86,000 from the complainant and P.Ws.; that he pretended himself a Police Inspector and that his co-accused has not been arrested so far.
6. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties with care. As mentioned above the allegation against the petitioner is that he along with his co-accused (Rana Mubarak) took Rs,1,86,000 from the complainant and P.Ws. Through fraud. There is unexplained delay of 2-1/2 months in lodging the F.I.R. And petitioner is entitled to get benefit of the same. He is in judicial lock up since 28-6-2005 but according to learned counsel for the petitioner trial has not commenced so far. The petitioner does not appear to be previous convict. The offence does not fall within the prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C. In these circumstances without going into merits of the case. I find it a fit case for grant of bail to the petitioner. As such application brought by him is accepted and he is allowed bail subject to furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs,1,00,000 with two sureties, each in the like amount to the satisfaction of learned trial Court. However, if petitioner fails to appear before learned trial Court on any date of hearing the trial Court would be competent to cancel his bail. The observations made in this order would not prejudice case of either party during trial.
Cited by 1 case
- Raja YASIR RAFIQUE vs THE STATE and another 2011 P Cr. L J 491