ALTAF HUSSAIN vs STATE and another
This matter arises from a criminal petition filed by Altaf Hussain seeking post-arrest bail in case FIR No. 375 of 2008 registered under Section 380 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 at Police Station Saddar Jalalpur Pirwala, District Multan. The core legal question is whether the petitioner has made out a case for further inquiry under Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, given the unexplained delay in lodging the FIR, his exoneration during police investigation, lack of recovery, and the absence of a previous criminal record. The Lahore High Court held that the petitioner successfully established grounds for further inquiry. Consequently, the court allowed the petition and admitted the petitioner to post-arrest bail subject to furnishing surety bonds. The key principle laid down is that while police findings of innocence are not strictly binding upon the court, they can be duly considered for the purpose of deciding bail matters.
- Whether unexplained delay in registration of the FIR and being found innocent during investigation constitutes a case for further inquiry under Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Can police findings of innocence during investigation be considered by the court for deciding a post-arrest bail petition?
- Section 380, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
Altaf Hussain petitioner seeks post arrest bail in case FIR No, 375/2008 dated 30.9.2008 under Section 380 PPC registered against him at Police Station Saddar Jalalpur Pirwala, District Multan.
2. It is, inter-alia contended that there is unexplained delay of four months in registration of the case; that the petitioner is neighbourer of the complainant, therefore, there is no question of mistaken identity; that even in the FIR it has in categorical terms been mentioned that accused had not muffled their faces; that the petitioner was found innocent during the investigation; that nothing has been recovered either from the possession of the petitioner or from any one else on his pointation. Places reliance on 2007 P.Cr.L. Nazar Hussain Versus The State, Muhammad Nawaz versus The State to canvass that although the police finding is not binding upon the Court yet for purposes of decision of the bail, the same can be considered; that petitioner is behind the bars for the last four months.
3. Conversely, learned DPG with vehemence opposes the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner and submits that accused has been placed in Column No,
2. Regarding other submission DPG although opposes the same but could not substantiate, his submission from the record; that petitioner is not named in the FIR; that investigations already been held; that he is not previous record holder, that he is behind that bars for the last four months, was found innocent during the investigation and nothing has been recovered from him or atleast on pointation from any one else.
4. After hearing arguments of learned counsel for the petitioner and after minutely examining the record I am of the view that petitioner has made out a case of further inquiry within the ambit of Section 497 Cr.P.C. This petition is therefore, allowed, the petitioner is admitted to post arrest bail subject to his furnishing bail bond in the sum of Rs,1,00,000/- (one lac) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of trial Court.
5. With these observation this criminal miscellaneous stands disposed of.