TAHIR NADEEM vs STATE
The petitioner sought post-arrest bail in case FIR No. 247 registered under Sections 458 and 380 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 at Police Station Matroo, District Vehari. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to post-arrest bail given the facts and circumstances of the case, including a delay in lodging the FIR, the deletion of Section 380 PPC during investigation, the lack of recovery from the petitioner, and his status as a previous non-convict. The Lahore High Court accepted the petition and held that the petitioner is admitted to bail subject to furnishing appropriate bail bonds. The key principle laid down is that where there is a considerable delay in lodging the FIR, deletion of key sections during investigation, no recovery effected from the accused, and the accused is a previous non-convict, a case for further inquiry is made out entitling the accused to post-arrest bail.
- Whether delay in lodging the FIR is a ground for granting post-arrest bail?
- Does the deletion of an offence section during investigation support a grant of bail?
- Is an accused entitled to bail if no recovery is effected from him and he is a previous non-convict?
- Section 380, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 458, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
1. The petitioner seeks post-arrest bail in case FIR No, 247 dated 25.7.2005 registered under Sections 458 and 380 PPC at P.S. Matroo Tehsil Mailsi, District Vehari.
2. Briefly stated the prosecution case as contained in the FIR is that the complainant Haji Muhammad Yar alongwith his family members was sleeping in the courtyard of his house on the mid night of 13/14.6.2005 when at about 1.00 a.m., five persons armed with fire-arms trespassed into the house and awoke the complainant aiming fire-arms at him. They demanded keys of the house from the complainant and during the search of his pocket took out an amount of Rs, 5000/- from his pocket, removed his wrist watch and took out keys of the rooms from his pocket through which the rooms' locks were opened. In the meanwhile, the wife of the complainant rose up and lite the bulb. On her alarm the PWs attracted. The complainant and the PWs identified the petitioner and the co-accused Islam Rasool as well as Sarfraz in the bulb light, while the two other persons could also be identified by the complainant on sight. At this juncture, Tahir Nadeem petitioner fired with pistol 30 bore at the complainant and the shot passed very close to the complainant. The culprits fled-away with the stolen articles including clothes and golden ornaments which were checked later on.
2. 3.Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that during the investigation Section 380 PPC has been deleted whereas Section 458 PPC is not made out; that the petitioner is previous non- convict; that the petitioner was arrested on 28.7.2005 and since then he is in jail; that challan is complete and that recovery is not effected from the petitioner.
3. 4.On the other hand, learned counsel for the State has opposed the bail application and submitted that the petitioner is named in the FIR; that Section 458 PPC is made out and that the petitioner has been found guilty during investigation.
4. 5.Arguments heard. Record perused.
5. 6.There is a delay of 40 days is lodging the FIR. During investigation, Section 380 PPC has been deleted. The petitioner is a previous non-convict. The petitioner was arrested on 28.7.2005 and since then he is in jail. Challan is complete. Section 458 PPC is not attracted. Recovery is not effected from the petitioner.
6. 7.In view of the above circumstances, the petitioner is admitted to bail subject to his furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs, 1,00,000/- (rupees on lac) with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court.