ASGHAR ALI vs THE STATE
This matter concerns a petition for post-arrest bail filed by the petitioner, Asghar Ali, who was implicated in an F.I.R. regarding the abduction of a minor and subsequent allegations of unnatural offences. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to bail given the delay in the F.I.R., the absence of specific allegations of abduction against him, and the investigating officer's findings that no sodomy was committed by the petitioner. The Court held that the petitioner was entitled to bail, concluding that the case fell within the scope of 'further inquiry' under the relevant criminal procedure law. The Court emphasized that the victim's statement under section 161, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, indicated no sodomy was committed by the petitioner, and the investigating officer found no incriminating material. The key principle laid down is that where investigation reveals insufficient evidence to substantiate the primary allegations against an accused, and the case requires further inquiry into guilt, the accused is entitled to the grant of post-arrest bail.
- Does a delay of four days in lodging an F.I.R. constitute a ground for further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Is an accused entitled to post-arrest bail when the investigating officer concludes that no incriminating material was recovered and the victim's statement does not support the commission of the offence by the accused?
- Does the absence of an allegation of abduction against a co-accused in the F.I.R. justify the grant of bail in a case involving multiple accused?
- Section 367A, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 337, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 34, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 161, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 497(2), Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
' HASNAT AHMAD KHAN, J.---Seeks post-arrest bail in case, F.I.R. No,426/2007, dated 29-5-2007 registered at Police Station new Multan, District Multan, in respect of offences under section 367A/34, P . P. C . Afterwards offence under section 337, P.P.C. Was also added.
2. In this case the criminal proceedings were triggered off on the application filed by Asif Ali, complainant according to whom Muhammad Javed co-accused visited the complainant's house at 12-00 noon on 25-5-2007 and took away his son namely Haseeb Asif aged 14-years. He further alleged that as his son Haseeb Asif did not return till evening, he suspected some foul play upon which the parents of Muhammad Javed co-accused were contacted by him but they failed to give any satisfactory reply. On the next day according to the complainant, he was contacted by Muhammad Javed through a cello phone and he (Muhammad Javed) allegedly told the complainant that he should not worry about his son who was safe and sound. The complainant went on to narrate that on further inquiry he came to know that Muhammad Javed co-accused had established a group comprising Muhammad Ikram, Asad co-accused and Muhammad Asghar petitioner apart from himself to abduct the children for commission of unnatural offence.
3. In support of this petition, learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that there is delay of 4 days in lodging the F.I.R., that the allegation of abduction has not been levelled against the petitioner and that during the investigation it was transpired that the petitioner had not committed sodomy with Haseeb Asif, the alleged victim.
4. Conversely, the learned Deputy Prosecutor-General has opposed the bail application on the ground that the petitioner who is specifically named in the F.I.R. Has committed a heinous and abominable offence, therefore, he is not entitled to bail.
5. Admittedly there is inordinate delay of 4-days in lodging the F.I.R. I have further gathered that in the F.I.R., the allegation of abduction was levelled only against Muhammad Javaid co-accused and there is no such allegation against the petitioner. The record reveals that while making the statement under section 161, Cr.P.C. The victim had stated that he had not been sodomized by the petitioner and only an attempt to commit sodomy was made by him. After due investigation the Investigating Officer opined that Asghar All petitioner had not committed unnatural offence with the victim. No incriminating material was recovered from the petitioner during the investigation.
Considering the said circumstances I have concluded that a case of further inquiry into the guilt of the petitioner has been made out, within the meanings of section 497 (2), Cr.P.C., to say the least.
Besides, the petitioner is suffering internment since 6-7-2007. No useful purpose would be served by detaining him in jail, any more. Consequently, the application in hand is accepted and the petitioner is admitted to post-arrest bail subject to his furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs,1,00,000 (Rupees one lac) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court.
Cited by 1 case
- ZAHIR HYDER vs THE STATE 2010 YLR 1960