ISHAQ and another vs THE STATE and another
This is an application for post-arrest bail under Section 17(3) of the Offences Against Property (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979, following the rejection of bail by subordinate courts. The petitioners were accused of robbing the complainant of a mobile set and cash. The court critically analyzed the material on record, noting an inordinate two-day delay in filing the First Information Report, which raised suspicion and suggested potential fabrication. Furthermore, the recovered money lacked specific description to connect it conclusively with the stolen amount, and the mobile set was not recovered. The court also considered the issue of identification, noting that the culprits were described as having muffled faces on a dark night, making the possibility of correct identification a matter for further probe at trial. Given that the investigation was almost complete and the petitioners were no longer required for interrogation, the court found no useful purpose in their continued detention. Consequently, the application was accepted, and bail was granted.
- Does an inordinate delay in filing an FIR affect the grant of bail?
- Is the recovery of unidentifiable money, without specific description, sufficient to deny bail?
- Does identification in poor light with muffled faces warrant further probe at trial, impacting the grant of bail?
- Is continued detention justified when investigation is complete and the accused are no longer required for interrogation?
- Section 17(3), Offences Against Property (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979
' GHULAM MOHYUD DIN MALIK, J.-This is an application for release of accused-petitioners on post- arrest bail, in case F.I.R. No,27 dated 13-2-2009 under section 17(3) Offences Against Property (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979, registered at Police Station Phulra, after rejection of their bail application by the learned subordinate Courts.
2. I have heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioners, the State Counsel and counsel for complainant and perused the record.
3. According to the allegation made in the F.I.R, by Malik Aman, on 11-2-2009 at 8 p.m., he was robbed on road side by the petitioners. They snatched away mobile set and a sum of Rs, eighteen or twenty thousand from him and his companions. It is alleged that they had identified the accused-petitioners in the head light of their vehicle.
4. Critical analysis of the valuable A. Material on record for the purpose of disposal of this application shows that there is an inordinate delay of about two days in making the report. The delay caused in reporting the matter is always viewed with suspicion because the promptly made F.I.R, eliminates the chances of fabrication, consultation and deliberation. Further more, as per the prosecution story, out of stolen amount Rs,1530 from Ishaq and Rs,1360 from Abdul Manan accused have been recovered by the Investigating Officer, but to connect the recovered money with the stolen amount, the description of the snatched money have not been disclosed in the report. So the notes allegedly, recovered are yet to be proved and identified as stolen property. Mobile set allegedly snatched from the victims has not been recovered so far. Apart from the above, it is argued before me that the petitioners and the complainant party are closely related inter se and due to some family problems over the abduction of sister of Ishaq petitioner with Muhammad Sabir nephew of the complainant, the instant case has been recorded for compelling the accused party to effect compromise. Now it i$ for the Investigating Officer to find out whether offence if any is committed. Anyhow, next comes the question of identification of accused in the head light of the vehicle. It is also a matter of further probe because in F.I.R, the culprits are shown muffled faces, on dark night, and they had come close to the complainant from door side of the vehicle, so it would be examined at the trial whether there was possibility of correct identification and no possibility at all of mistaken identity. Lastly the investigation in the case is almost complete. The petitioners have been sent to jail showing that they are no more required to the police for investigation or interrogation. So in these circumstances, keeping them behind the bars for further indefinite period would serve no useful purpose.
5. For the foregoing reasons, on acceptance of this application, the petitioners are allowed bail on furnishing bail bond in the sum of Rs,1,00,000 with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of Ilaqa judicial Magistrate.