MUMTAZ alias MASHOOQ vs THE STATE
This matter concerns a bail application filed under the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 by the applicant, Mumtaz alias Mashooq, who was implicated in an F.I.R. registered for offences under the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the applicant was entitled to post-arrest bail given the alleged discrepancies in the F.I.R., the delay in its registration, and the statement of the alleged abductee indicating she left her home voluntarily due to fear of violence. The Court considered the arguments regarding the misidentification of the applicant in the F.I.R., the unexplained two-day delay in reporting the incident, and the statement of the alleged victim recorded before a Judicial Magistrate, which contradicted the prosecution's case. Furthermore, the State, represented by the Assistant Advocate-General, conceded to the grant of bail. Consequently, the Court allowed the application, holding that the applicant was entitled to bail. The judgment reaffirms the principle that where the State concedes to bail and the material on record casts doubt on the prosecution's allegations, bail should be granted subject to the furnishing of surety.
- Does a statement by an alleged abductee indicating voluntary departure provide sufficient grounds for the grant of bail to the accused?
- Can bail be granted when the State counsel concedes to the request?
- Does a significant, unexplained delay in the registration of an F.I.R. constitute a valid ground for the grant of bail?
- Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 498, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 452, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 365-B, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 34, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
1. ' FARRUKH ZIA G. SHAIKH, J.---Applicant Mumtaz alias Mashooq by caste Shar has filed this Application under sections 497/498, Cr.P.C. Seeking bail, who is wanted in F.I.R Crime No,110 of 2008 registered at Police Station, Paddidan for an offence under sections 452, 365-B, 34, P.P.C.
2. ' Mr. Noor Muhammad Soomro, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant has argued that originally the name of applicant, is Mumtaz whereas in the F.I.R, the complainant has shown the name of applicant as Mashooq, which shows clear mala fides on the part of complainant. He has submitted that there is a delay of two days in lodging of the F.I.R while distance of Police Station, from the place of wardat, is only 1 kilometer for which there is no plausible explanation. In the last he has stated that in fact no such incident has taken place as it is clear from the statement of alleged abductee Mst. Shahnaz before the learned Civil Judge and Judicial Magistrate 1st, Khirpur stating that she had left the house voluntarily due to fear of murder and if her custody was handed over to her parents or other relatives, she will be murdered and therefore, she was sent to Darul Aman, Sukkur.
3. ' Mr. Agha Ather Hussain, learned Assistant Advocate-General Sindh appearing on behalf of the State, has frankly conceded to the grant of bail.
4. ' I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and with their assistance I have perused the material available on the record. Keeping in view that no objection extended by the learned Asstt. A.-G. Appearing on behalf of the State, I allow this application and grant bail to the applicant. He shall be released from Jail subject to furnishing surety in the sum of Rs,100,000 and P.R. Bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court.
5. ' Bail application stands disposed of.