GULFAM vs THE STATE
The petitioner, Gulfam, sought post-arrest bail in connection with F.I.R. No. 545 registered at Police Station New Multan for offences under Sections 380, 457, and 411 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The prosecution alleged that the petitioner stole various items, including a rifle, ammunition, tape recorders, and cash from the complainant's factory. The core legal question was whether, given the circumstances of the investigation and the evidence presented, the petitioner was entitled to the concession of bail. The Court observed that the F.I.R. was lodged after an unexplained delay of eight days. Furthermore, the Court found the prosecution's claim that the petitioner kept the stolen property hidden in bushes for over two years without using or selling it to be implausible. Additionally, the petitioner was not named in the F.I.R. Consequently, the Court held that a case for further inquiry was made out and granted post-arrest bail to the petitioner, subject to furnishing bail bonds. The principle laid down is that unexplained delays in reporting and implausible recovery narratives undermine the prosecution's case for the purpose of bail.
- Does an unexplained delay in lodging an F.I.R. constitute a ground for granting bail?
- Is the recovery of stolen property after a significant lapse of time, without evidence of use or sale, sufficient to cast doubt on the prosecution's case for bail purposes?
- Can a petitioner be granted bail if they were not named in the F.I.R.?
- Section 380, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 457, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 411, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
' MUHAMMAD FARRUKH MAHMUD, J.---Gulfam-petitioner has sought post-arrest bail in case F.I.R.
No,545, registered at Police Station New Multan, for offences under sections 380/ 457/411, P.P.C.
2. According to F.I.R., when the complainant went to his factory on 20-10-2003, he found that lock of the room had been broken and 7 mm rifle along with 25 live bullets, car tape recorder and another tape recorder along with Rs,7,200 had been stolen. During investigation the petitioner led to the recovery of allegedly stolen-tape recorder on 7-12-2005 from the bushes.
3. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record. It has been noticed that the matter was reported to the police after an unexplained delay of eight days; it is revolting to the common sense to believe that a thief would keep the stolen property in the bushes for more than two years, neither he used it himself nor sold it; and the petitioner is not named in the F.I.R. In these circumstances, I am inclined to admit the petitioner to bail, subject to his furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rupees Fifty Thousand, with one surety, in the like amount, to the satisfaction of the trial Court.
Cited by 1 case
- Raja YASIR RAFIQUE vs THE STATE and another 2011 P Cr. L J 491