ABDUL HAQUE vs THE STATE
This bail petition concerns an application filed by the petitioner, Abdul Haque, seeking post-arrest bail in a criminal case. The petitioner contended that he was falsely implicated, highlighting a five-month delay in lodging the First Information Report (F.I.R.), the lack of recovery during a fourteen-day physical remand, and the fact that the alleged offence did not fall within the prohibitory clause of the relevant criminal procedure law. The State opposed the bail, noting the petitioner was named in the F.I.R. and that the trial was at the evidence stage. The Court observed that other co-accused had already been granted bail by the trial court. Furthermore, the Court noted the significant delay in the F.I.R., the failure to recover the alleged abductee, and the absence of incriminating recoveries. Holding that the case fell under the category of further inquiry, the Court affirmed that in such matters, the grant of bail is the rule and refusal is the exception. Consequently, the Court allowed the petition and admitted the petitioner to bail.
- Does a delay of five months in lodging an F.I.R. constitute a ground for the grant of post-arrest bail?
- Is a petitioner entitled to bail if the offence charged does not fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Does the failure to recover an alleged abductee during a lengthy physical remand entitle an accused to the concession of bail?
- Section 497(1), Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 497(2), Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
' KHAWAJA MUHAMMAD. SHARIF, J.- Learned counsel for the petitioner, in support of this bail petition contends that the petitioner has falsely been involved in this case; that there is a delay of five months in lodging-the F.I.R.; that he remained on physical remand for full fourteen days but nothing was recovered; that the offence does not fall within the prohibitory clause of section 497(1), Cr.P.C. That the case of the petitioner is one of further inquiry and that the petitioner is entitled to the concession of bail.
2. On the other hand, Mr. Naseeruddin Khan Nayyar, the learned Additional'Prosecutor-General assisted by complainant's learned counsel submits that the petitioner is named in the F.I.R.; that the challan was submitted on 4-11-2006 and the case is fixed for evidence for today while on the last date of' hearing it was adjourned due to adjournment sought by petitioner party and that the petitioner is not entitled to the discretionary relief of bail from this Court.
3. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, have given consideration to the submissions made at the bar and have also gone through the record.
4. Admittedly, all the accused except the petitioner, have already been allowed bail by the learned Additional Session Judge. There is a delay of five months in lodging the F.I.R., petitioner was arrested on 30-7-2006, he remained on physical remand for full fourteen days but nothing was recovered from him, even till today the alleged abductee has not been recovered so far, the offence does not fall within the prohibitory clause of section 497(1), Cr.P.C., In the afore-referred circumstances, this Court is of the, prima- facie, view that the petitioner has made out a case falling under subsection (2) to section 497, Cr.P.C. And is entitled to the concession of bail. In such- like cases grant of. Bail is a rule while refusal is an exception; Reliance is placed on Tariq Bashir and 6 others v. The State PLD 1996 SC* 34. Resultantly, this petition is allowed and the petitioner is admitted to- bail provided he furnishes bail bonds in the sum of Rs. 1,00,000 each with one surety each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Deputy Registrar (Judicial) of this Court.