NAWAB DIN alias BABU vs THE STATE
This matter concerns a post-arrest bail application filed by the petitioner, Nawab Din, who was accused of setting fire to the complainant's wheat crop under Section 435 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to bail given the circumstances of the case, specifically the delay in lodging the First Information Report (F.I.R.), the finding of innocence regarding a co-accused, and the fact that the alleged offence did not fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The Court held that the unexplained four-day delay in lodging the F.I.R., the exoneration of a co-accused during investigation, and the fact that no prosecution witnesses had been examined despite the petitioner being in judicial custody, collectively created sufficient grounds to grant bail. The Court affirmed the principle that where an offence does not fall within the prohibitory clause of the relevant bail statute and the prosecution's case appears doubtful due to procedural delays and investigation findings, the petitioner is entitled to the concession of bail.
- Is an accused entitled to bail if the alleged offence does not fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Does an unexplained delay in lodging an F.I.R. constitute a ground for granting bail?
- Can the exoneration of a co-accused during investigation be considered when deciding a bail application for the remaining accused?
- Section 435, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
' SYED SAKHI HUSSAIN BOKHARI, J.---The petitioner has applied for post-arrest bail in case F.I.R.
No,195 of 2006 dated 29-4-2006 under section 435, P.P.C. Registered at Police Station Joharabad District Khushab.
2. As per F.I.R. On 25-4-2006 at about 8-00 p.m. Petitioner and his co-accused, Khan Muhammad set on fire wheat crop belonging to the complainant. The case was registered at the instance of Muhammad Bashir and petitioner was accordingly arrested on 25-5-2006. Hence this bail application.
3. I have heard the arguments and perused the record.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case. Further submits that there is delay of four days in lodging the F.I.R. And the same has not been explained by the complainant, which makes the prosecution story doubtful. He contended that Khan Muhammad has been nominated by complainant in F.I.R. But during investigation he was found to be innocent, therefore, prosecution story becomes doubtful. He further contended that petitioner is in judicial lock-up since 25-5-2006 but no P.W. Has been examined so far and that offence does not fall within the prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C. , therefore, petitioner deserves concession of bail.
5. On the other hand learned counsel for the complainant as well as State have opposed this application on the grounds that petitioner is named in the F.I.R.; that he damaged the wheat crop of the complainant; that delay in lodging the F.I.R. Has been explained and that now case is fixed for 16-9-2006 for prosecution evidence.
6. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties with care. As mentioned above the allegation against the petitioner is that he along with his co-accused, Khan Muhammad set on fire wheat crop belonging to the complainant. There is unexplained delay of four days in lodging the F.I.R. And petitioner is entitled to get benefit of the same. As per F.I.R. Khan Muhammad, co-accused was present at the scene of occurrence at the relevant time but learned counsel for the State submits that during investigation he (Khan Muhammad) was found to be innocent. The petitioner is in judicial lock-up since 25-5-2006 but according to learned counsel for the parties, no P.W. Has been examined so far. The offence does not fall within the prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C. In these circumstances without going into merits of the case, I find it a fit case for grant of bail to the petitioner. As such application brought by him is accepted and he is allowed bail subject to furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs,50,000 with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of learned trial Court. However if petitioner fails to appear before learned trial Court on any date of hearing the trial Court would be competent, to cancel his bail.
The observations made in this order would not prejudice case of either party during trial.