KHURSHEED AHMAD vs THE STATE
This matter arises from a petition for post-arrest bail filed by Khursheed Ahmad in connection with First Information Report No. 428 registered at Police Station City Lodhran on October 30, 2004, for offences under Sections 382, 406, and 420 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, involving an allegation of robbery of 9,80,000 rupees. The core legal question considered by the court is whether the petitioner is entitled to post-arrest bail on grounds of statutory delay, rule of consistency with co-accused, and delayed reporting of the crime. The Lahore High Court held that the petitioner has made out a case for bail, noting that he had been in jail for over one year and eight months, co-accused had already been admitted to bail by the trial court, and the matter was reported to the police after an inordinate delay of over five and a half months. The court laid down the principle that prolonged incarceration coupled with the grant of bail to co-accused and delayed lodging of the first information report constitutes sufficient ground for the grant of post-arrest bail.
- Whether prolonged incarceration of over one year and eight months entitles an accused to post-arrest bail?
- Does the principle of consistency apply when co-accused facing similar allegations have been granted bail by the trial court?
- What is the evidentiary impact of a delay of more than five and a half months in reporting a criminal matter to the police in bail matters?
- Section 382, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 406, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 420, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
' MUHAMMAD FARRUKH MAHMUD, J.-Khursheed Ahmad has sought post-arrest bail in case F.I.R.
No,428 registered at Police Station, City Lodhran on 30-10-2004 for offences under, sections 382/406/420, P.P.C.
2. The allegation against the petitioner is that he along with other accused after overpowering the complainant committed robbery of 9,80,000 rupees.
3. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the relevant record.
4. It is stated at bar by the learned counsel for the petitioner that he was arrested on 9-11-2004 and is in jail for more than one year and eight months. Muhammad Sadiq and Faiz Bakhsh, coaccused of the petitioner, were admitted to bail by the learned trial Court vide order dated 20-3-2006. It is also noteworthy that the matter was reported to the police after a delay of more than 5-1/2 months. In the above noted circumstances, I admit the petitioner to bail subject to his furnishing bail bonds in the sum of rupees one lac with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court.