GHULAM HUSSAIN vs THE STATE
This post-arrest bail application arose from a criminal case alleging that the applicant, along with co-accused, committed robbery of cash, mobile phones, and an identity card at gunpoint. The primary legal issue before the High Court of Sindh was whether the unexplained four-month delay in lodging the First Information Report (F.I.R.), coupled with the absence of any incriminating recovery from the accused, entitled the applicant to post-arrest bail. The Court observed that if such a serious offence had occurred involving the robbery of a significant amount of money, the victim ought to have approached the police immediately rather than engaging in protracted negotiations with the accused. The Court held that an inordinate and unexplained delay in lodging an F.I.R. raises a strong possibility of deliberate consultation and false implication. Given the lack of plausible explanation for the delay and the absence of any recovery of crime weapons or looted property from the applicant, the Court allowed the application and granted bail subject to furnishing solvent surety.
- Whether an unexplained inordinate delay of four months in lodging an F.I.R. justifies the grant of post-arrest bail?
- Does the absence of recovery of looted property or crime weapons from an accused support an application for bail in a robbery case?
- Whether engaging in private negotiations instead of promptly reporting a crime to police creates a presumption of false implication upon later filing an F.I.R.?
ORDER
1. ' BHAJANDAS TEJWANI, J. ---The allegations against the applicant are that on 2-6-2009, the complainant along with his nephew, Amjad Ali went in private car with private driver, the present applicant along with three others robbed cash of Rs,1,52,00 two mobile phones of Nokia Company and identity card on the show of fire-arm weapons. Thereafter, it is alleged by the complainant that he approached the applicant for return of the property who kept the complainant on promises, but on refusal the complainant has chosen to lodge the F.I.R. With delay of four months.
2. ' The learned counsel for the applicant has contended that there is inordinate delay in lodging the F.I.R. For which no plausible explanation has been furnished. The F.I.R. Has been lodged with full consultation and pre-planning to involve a respectable person in a crime, failing which when the complainant was deprived from heavy amount and such heinous offence as alleged by the complainant has taken place.He should have immediately approached the police for action against the culprits involved in the crime. It is further stated by the learned counsel that no recovery of crime weapon or robbed property has been effected from the present applicant. He has placed reliance on case of Maula Box v. The State reported in 2003 PCr.LJ 394, and case of Abdul Ghani v. The State reported in 1986 SCM R 1174.
3. ' The learned counsel appearing for the State in view of inordinate delay and case law cited by the learned counsel for applicant does not oppose for the grant of the bail.
4. There is inordinate delay of four months in lodging of the F.I.R. In case, such offence was committed and the complainant or his nephew were victims of such incident, by which they were deprived from the heavy amount, then the complainant should have immediately approached the police but he has chosen to involve himself in the negotiations with the accused, therefore, in such circumstances the lodging of the F.I.R. With consultation and false implication cannot be ruled out, particularly, in the circumstances, when no recovery has been effected from the applicant.
5. ' For the foregoing reasons, this bail application is allowed. The applicant shall be released on bail on his furnishing solvent surety in the sum of Rs,200,000 (Two lacs) and P.R. Bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of trial Court.