HABIBULLAH JATOI vs THE STATE
This is a post-arrest bail application filed by the applicant, Habibullah, seeking release in connection with an FIR registered for offences under sections 324, 148, 149, and 452 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, and section 17/3 of the Offences Against Property (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance 1979. The core legal question was whether the applicant was entitled to bail given the significant delay in lodging the FIR and the existence of long-standing enmity between the parties. The Court observed that the FIR was lodged more than five months after the alleged incident, and the statements of the prosecution witnesses were recorded after a similar delay without explanation. Furthermore, the Court noted the applicant had previously been on interim pre-arrest bail without misusing the concession. Consequently, the Court held that the applicant had made out a case for bail. The key principle laid down is that an unexplained, inordinate delay in lodging an FIR, coupled with a history of litigation and hostility between parties, constitutes sufficient grounds to grant bail to an accused, even in cases involving serious allegations.
- Does an unexplained, inordinate delay in lodging an FIR constitute sufficient grounds for the grant of post-arrest bail?
- Can a history of long-standing litigation and hostility between parties be considered a relevant factor when deciding a bail application?
- Is an accused entitled to bail if they have previously remained on interim pre-arrest bail without misusing the concession?
- Section 324, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 148, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 149, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 452, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 17/3, Offences Against Property (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance 1979
- Section 161, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
' KHADIM HUSSAIN M. SHAIKH, J.--- Through this application applicant seeks post-arrest bail in crime No,122 of 2008 Police Station New Foujdari for offence under sections 324, 148, 149, 452, P.P.C. And 17/3 Offences Against Property (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979.
2. Brief facts of the case are that on 31-12-2007 at 0015 hours complainant Hazoor Bux appeared at Police Station New Faujdari and lodged his N.C. Report that he had received injuries and such letter for his treatment and certificate etc be issued to him. The complainant then was admitted in Civil Hospital Shikarpur wherefrom he was referred to Civil Hospital Sukkur.
3. On 5-6-2008 complainant Hazoor Bux lodged his F.I.R. No,122 of 2008 at Police Station New Faujdari mainly stating therein that on 31-12-2007 at 1130 hours accused Habibullah armed with gun along with eight others including two unknown persons armed with different weapons entered into the house of the complainant and accused Habibullah fired his gun at complainant which hit him and then accused Barkat and Suhrab drove away complainant's buffalo costing Rs,70,000 making firing in the air. This incident was also allegedly witnessed by his two sons namely Fida Hussain and Imtiaz. All the accused including the applicant were shown as absconders in the challan. On 10-10-2008 the applicant Habibullah was admitted to interim pre-arrest bail by the learned Court of Sessions Judge, Shikarpur. On 2-4-2009 the interim pre arrest to the applicant was recalled and he was committed to custody by, the learned Court of 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Shakarpur. The application for post-ariest bail moved on behalf of the applicant was rejected by the learned trial Court vide order dated 7-4-2009. Hence this application.
4. Learned Advocate for the applicant has mainly contended that there is delay of more than five months in lodging the F.I.R. And recording the statement under section 161, Cr.P.C. Of the P.Ws namely Fida Hussain and Imtiaz: that the parties are already tagged with litigation since decades to substantiate his contention, he places on record copies of plaint of S.C. Suit No,7 of 1995 Hazoor Bux and others v. Abdul Rab and others. Judgment in Case No,21 Of 2000 Hazoor Bux v. Habibullah and others passed by TV Additional Sessions Judge, Shikarpur and judgment dated 30-12-2003 in case No,164 of 2003 re: Hazoor Bux v. Habibullah and others, that the applicant is an old man aged of 63 years he, therefore, prays for grant of ball to the applicant. He has placed his reliance on the case of Karim Haider and others v. The State 1996 SCMR 938.
5. Mr. Niaz Hussain Mirani, Advocate who files Vakalatnama for the complainant has contended that name of the applicant finds place in the F.I.R. With specific role of causing injury to the complainant/injured and the applicant is not entitled to the grant of bail. He has placed his reliance on the case of Khalil Ahmed and others v. The State 1986 PCr.LJ 2728 (Lahore).
6. Learned State counsel also opposes the bail application.
7. I have considered the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the police papers with the help of the learned State Counsel. I find that in the first report i,e, N.C.
Report of injured Hazoor Bux Jatoi lodged on 31-12-2007 at 0015 hours he did not disclose name of any accused nor narrated the story of the incident, the statements under section 161, Cr.P.C. Of the P.Ws. Fida Hussain and Imtiaz were also recorded after five months of the incident without any explanation thereof, the said P.Ws who admittedly had not received any injury could lodge F.I.R.
Against the applicant and others, there is recorded old hostility between the parties, the applicant remained on interim pre arrest bail from 10-10-2008 to 2-4-2009, without any complaint of misusing the concession of bail and he had since joined the trial. In the case of Karim Haider (supra) the Honourable apex Court granted bail to the accused, as there was unexplained inordinate delay in lodging the F.I.R. The case of Khalil Ahmed (supra) relied upon by the learned counsel for the complainant is distinguishable from the facts of this case as in that case there was delay of 20 hours in lodging the F.I.R. And in the present case there is delay of more than 5 months in lodgment of the F.I.R.
8. In view what has been stated above I am of the opinion that applicant has made out case for grant of bail, therefore, bail is granted to A applicant Habibullah in the sum of Rs,2,00,000 (Rupees two lac) subject to his furnishing solvent surety and P.R. Bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court.
' The bail application is allowed.