ZAHID alias NAZIR vs THE STATE
This matter concerns a bail application filed by an accused facing trial for an offence under Section 17(3) of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979, following allegations of robbery. The core legal question was whether the accused was entitled to post-arrest bail given the significant delay in lodging the First Information Report (F.I.R.) and the absence of any recovery of the alleged robbed items from the accused. The Court held that the 27-day unexplained delay in filing the F.I.R., combined with the lack of recovery of any robbed property from the applicant despite his prolonged custody, rendered the prosecution's case doubtful. Consequently, the Court determined that the applicant had made out a case for further inquiry into his guilt. The key principle laid down is that where there is a substantial, unexplained delay in the registration of an F.I.R. and a complete absence of recovery of incriminating or stolen material from the accused, the case against the accused becomes doubtful, thereby entitling them to the benefit of doubt and the grant of bail.
- Does an unexplained 27-day delay in lodging an F.I.R. constitute grounds for granting bail?
- Is an accused entitled to bail when no robbed articles are recovered from them?
- Does the absence of recovery of stolen property make a case one of further inquiry?
- Section 17(3), Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance 1979
- Section 491, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
1. ' NADEEM AZHAR SIDDIQUI, J.---The applicant is facing trial in crime No,4 of 2006 of Police Station Nabi Shah Wagan under section 17 (3) E.H.O.
2. 1979.
3. ' The allegation against the applicant is that on 20-2-2006 he along with two co-accused armed with K.K. Robbed the complainant and took Rs,15,000 of various notes from daraz of the table and NIC from pocket and one golden ring from finger and ran away on their motorcycle.
4. ' The application was filed before the trial Court who has dismissed the same on the ground that delay in lodging the report is not sufficient to grant bail in haraba cases. The trial Court while dismissing bail application has given the right to the applicant to move fresh bail application after examination of two private witnesses.
5. ' Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that there is 27 days unexplained delay in lodging the F.I.R. The applicant was in custody for 10 days which is confirmed from application under section 491, Cr.P.C. Dated 16-3-2006 filed by the cousin of the applicant. He further submitted that no robbed article was recovered from the applicant. According to him since no recovery has been made a case of further inquiry has been made out.
6. ' Mr. Muhammad Ismail Bhutto, State Counsel, after going through the police papers has confirmed that the delay is unexplained and that no recovery of robbed article has been made from the applicant. He further submits that one K.K. Was recovered on the pointation of the applicant but the same was secured by some other police station. He has frankly conceded to the grant of bail.
7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. The F.I.R. Was lodged after delay of 27 days and there is no explanation on the part of the applicant that as to why this delay was occurred. The applicant is in custody since last more that 7 months but no recovery has been made on his pointation. Lodging of the F.I.R. After 27 days without any explanation and without recovery of any robbed material the case has become doubtful and the accused/applicant is entitled for the benefit of doubt.
8. ' In view of the position, I find that the case of further inquiry into the guilt of the applicant has been made out. I therefore, direct that the applicant be released on bail on his furnishing solvent surety in the sum of Rs,100,000 and P.R. Bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of trial Court.
Cited by 2 cases
- MUHAMMAD ZAMAN vs THE STATE 2008 P Cr. L J 1524
- KHUDA BUX and another vs THE STATE 2008 P Cr. L J 1586