AURANGZAIB and 3 others vs STATE
This matter arises from a pre-arrest bail petition filed by Aurang Zaib and three others in case FIR No. 364/2006 registered under Sections 364, 148, and 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 at Police Station Langrana, Tehsil Chiniot, District Jhang, concerning the alleged abduction of the complainant's sister. The core legal question is whether the petitioners are entitled to pre-arrest bail in light of an unexplained nine-month delay in lodging the FIR, contradictory police investigations, prior failure to implicate the petitioners before the Justice of Peace, and existing family disputes. The Lahore High Court held that the case calls for further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 and confirmed the pre-arrest bail granted to the petitioners. The key legal principles laid down are that a significant unexplained delay in lodging an FIR, conflicting police investigations rendering both unreliable, and proven mala fides arising from prior civil litigation and family disputes constitute valid grounds for confirming pre-arrest bail.
- Whether an unexplained delay of nine months in lodging an FIR is a ground for granting pre-arrest bail?
- Does a variance between two successive police investigations neutralize both for the purpose of denying bail?
- Can pre-arrest bail be confirmed when prior civil litigation and family disputes indicate mala fides on the part of the complainant?
- Whether the absence of eye-witnesses and direct or indirect evidence brings a case within the scope of further inquiry?
- Section 364, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 148, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 149, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
Aurang Zaib, Jabbar, Muhammad Saleem and Jalal-ud-Din alias Jalli petitioners seek pre-arrest bail in case FIR No, 364/2006 dated 10.7.2006, registered under Sections 364/148/149 PPC at Police Station Langrana Tehsil Chiniot District Jhang.
2. Precise allegations against the petitioners, as per the narration of the FIR, are that they had abducted the sister of the complainant.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that false allegations have been levelled against the petitioners by the complainant as there is no direct or indirect evidence available against the petitioners to connect them with the commission of the offences under which the petitioners are liable to be tried. No incriminating material is available on record which could connect the petitioners with the commission of the offence as alleged by the complainant that her sister was abducted by the petitioners and was subsequently done to death. He further submits that extra judicial confession made by one of the petitioners Aurang Zaib has no evidentiary value which has not been corroborated by any other independent source. He also submits that Section 364 PPC is not made out against the petitioners as there is no evidence available on record by which it could be proved that the petitioners had abducted the sister of the complainant. He further submits that there is a delay of nine months in lodging the FIR, therefore, possibility of deliberations cannot be ruled out. He lastly argues that there was a family dispute between the abductee and one of the petitioners Aurang Zaib as there existed family dispute as well as civil litigation, therefore, malafides on the part of the complainant are clearly proved.
4. Learned DPG opposes the bail application and submits that all the petitioners are nominated in the FIR with a specific role of abduction. He further argues that all the petitioners have been held guilty in police investigation. He, however, submits that two investigations were conducted in the instant case and both the investigations are at variance.
5. I have heard both the learned counsel and have also perused the record. There is no denying the fact that the petitioners are nominated in the FIR with a specific role but the facts and circumstances of the case prove the fact that the petitioners are not involved in the abduction of the sister of the complainant because there is a delay of nine months in lodging the FIR after the occurrence. Had abduction taken place by the petitioners then there was no reason for the complainant not to the involve petitioners in the instant case. It appears that she was not sure as to whether the petitioners are the ones who had committed abduction. Complainant had made an application to Justice of Peace for registration of a criminal case against suspected accused persons who were made respondents in that application and none of the petitioners had been arrayed as respondents therein meaning thereby that at the time of filing an application before the Justice of Peace she did not implicate the petitioners with the commission of the offence. Moreover, there is no direct or indirect evidence available on record which could connect the petitioners with the commission of the offence. There is no eye-witness account of the occurrence. Two investigations were conducted in this case according to which in first investigation petitioners were declared innocent but subsequently were declared guilty. When two investigations are at variance then no reliance can be placed on any of the investigations as nothing can be determined about the guilt or innocence of the accused persons. Admittedly, there was a family dispute between both the parties and civil litigation was also pending, therefore, mala fides on the part of the complainant against, the petitioners are quite evident.
6. For the foregoing reasons I am convinced that the case of the petitioners falls within the ambit of further inquiry into their guilt. I, therefore, confirm ad-interim pre-arrest bail already granted to the petitioners subject to their furnishing fresh bail bonds in the sum of Rs, 50,000/- each with two sureties in the like amount each to the satisfaction of the trial Court.