MUHAMMAD RAFIQUE vs THE STATE
This matter arises from a petition seeking post-arrest bail in case F.I.R. No. 773 of 2004 registered under sections 324, 458, 148, and 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 at Police Station Tandalianwala, District Faisalabad. The core legal question is whether the petitioner is entitled to post-arrest bail despite facing specific allegations of causing firearm injuries supported by medical evidence and statements under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, notwithstanding a delay in lodging the F.I.R. The Lahore High Court dismissed the bail petition, holding that the delay in registration of the F.I.R. was attributable to the police rather than the complainant, as evidenced by the prompt medico-legal examination, and that the petitioner prima facie fell within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The key principle laid down is that police delay in registering an F.I.R. does not prejudice the complainant's case when medical evidence and ocular accounts consistently corroborate the active role attributed to the accused in a heinous offense falling within the prohibitory clause.
- Whether delay in lodging an F.I.R. by the police adversely affects the complainant's case when medico-legal examination is conducted promptly?
- Does a specific allegation of causing firearm injuries supported by medical evidence disentitle an accused from post-arrest bail under the prohibitory clause?
- Whether the petitioner falls within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 when statements under Section 161 support the prosecution stand?
- Section 324, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 458, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 148, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 149, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 161, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
' MIAN MUHAMMAD NAJAMUZ-ZAMAN, J.---Seeks post arrest bail in case F.I.R. No, 773 of 2004, dated 20-8-2004 for the offence under sections 324/458/148/149, P.P.C. Registered at Police Station, Tandalianwala, District, Faisalabad.
2. In brief the case of the prosecution is that on 26-7-2004 at 5-00 a.m. Petitioner being armed with gun along with other co-accused in furtherance of their common intention had caused fire-arm injuries to Sadi Ahmed. During the investigation petitioner remained fugitive from law and after complying with all legal formalities the agency got issued the proclamation and ultimately he was arrested on 13-9-2004. His bail application was dismissed by Addl. Sessions Judge on 25-5-2005, hence this petition.
3. Heard. File perused.
4. This occurrence took place on 26-7-2004 but the matter was reported to the police after almost one month of the occurrence i.e, 20-8-2004. In this view of the matter learned counsel argued that the F.I.R. Was lodged after consultation and deliberation but I see no force in this argument because Medico-legal Report available on the record reveals that on the next day of occurrence i.e, 27-7-2004 at about 10-00 a.m. Injured Sadi Ahmed was produced before Medical Officer for examination by the police concerned and in this view of the matter if the case was registered by the police after the said delay the burden heavily lies on the shoulders of police officials and not against the complainant of this case. The contents of the F.I.R. Reveals that there is specific allegation against the petitioner of causing fire-arm injuries to Sadi Ahmed, the medical evidence also corroborates the ocular account on this score. During, the investigation the injured witnesses while making statement under section 161, Cr.P.C. Has also supported the prosecution stand. In the light of data available on the record, prima facie, finding the case of the petitioner falling within the Prohibitory Clause of section 497, Cr.P.C. I see no force in this petition, the same stands dismissed.