PEERAL alias PEER BUX vs THE STATE
This matter arises from a bail application filed by the applicant, Peeral alias Peer Bux, seeking post-arrest relief in a criminal case involving allegations of administering poison. The core legal questions pertain to whether the unexplained delay in lodging the First Information Report, the improbable conduct of the complainant in consuming tea despite knowing it contained poison, and the lack of explanation for delay in medical examination constitute grounds for further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The Sindh High Court held that the factual narrative in the F.I.R. requires further scrutiny given the absence of resistance from the complainant or her parents present at the scene, the significant delay in registration of the F.I.R., and the fact that no serious harm was caused. The court ruled that the case fell within the scope of further inquiry and admitted the applicant to post-arrest bail, laying down the principle that unexplained delays in reporting crimes and improbable circumstances surrounding the commission of an offense warrant the grant of bail pending further investigation.
- Does an unexplained delay in lodging the First Information Report justify the grant of post-arrest bail?
- Whether the improbable conduct of a complainant consuming poison without resistance warrants further inquiry into the guilt of the accused?
- Can bail be granted when the medical report shows that no serious harm was caused to the complainant?
- Section 337-J, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
' MUNIB AHMAD KHAN, J.---Learned counsel submits that the applicant has been involved by his wife only for the reason that the applicant was inclined to have second marriage and this has annoyed her, therefore, she with all intention and with consultation of her parents, has tried to involve him in this false case. He further submits that according to F.I.R., poison was allegedly administered on 4-9-2006 and that too in presence of father and mother of the complainant. He further submits that it is very strange that the complainant herself heard about mixing of poison in the tea and knowing that the tea contains poison, she drank that tea without resistance. He further submits that on the complaint of the lady, police referred her for medical examination on the day of alleged incident i.e, 4-9-2006 but she was examined on the next day which is reflected by the letter of the Government Hospital. He submits that the delay in examination has not been explained. The letter of the Government Hospital dated 5-9-2006 has also been seen, according to which, some poison was detected and was just cleaned by stomach wash.
2. The learned Assistant Advocate-General submits that the applicant has been named in the F.I.R.
And the poison Borbiturate has been detected and that the report is positive.
3. After hearing the learned counsel and perusal of the record it appears that factual position narrated in the F.I.R. Needs further scrutiny as there were allegedly five persons in the house including the parents of the complainant. The complainant lady as well as her parents could resist any move but that has not been done nor any explanation in this respect has been given. The F.I.R.
Itself has been registered on 10-10-2006 while alleged incident took place on 4-9-2006 and the complainant would have registered the F.I.R. On that very day which has not been done. It is also observed from the medical report that no harm has been caused to the complainant and nature of injury is to be ascertained after further investigation to apply section 337-J. In the circumstances, applicant is admitted to bail in the sum of Rs,2,00,000 P.R. Bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of trial Court.
Cited by 1 case
- SHAHZAIB Versus State 2017 YLRN 311