GULZAR AHMAD vs STATE and another
This matter concerns a petition for post-arrest bail filed by the petitioner, who was accused in FIR No. 210/2001 registered at Police Station Saddar Mian Channu, District Khanewal, for alleged offences under Sections 380, 458, and 411 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The petitioner contended that he was falsely implicated, highlighted an unexplained delay of over seven months in lodging the FIR, and argued that the alleged offences were not substantiated by the facts. The State opposed the bail, characterizing the offence as heinous. Upon review, the Court observed that there was no direct evidence linking the petitioner to the crime and noted the absence of an identification parade during the investigation. Furthermore, the Court remarked on the lack of progress in the trial despite the submission of the challan. Finding that the petitioner's case fell within the ambit of further inquiry, the Court allowed the petition, holding that continued incarceration served no useful purpose, and admitted the petitioner to post-arrest bail subject to the furnishing of bail bonds.
- Does the absence of an identification parade during investigation constitute grounds for granting post-arrest bail?
- Can an unexplained, significant delay in lodging an FIR justify the grant of bail?
- Does the lack of progress in a trial after the submission of a challan provide a basis for admitting an accused to bail?
- Section 380, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 458, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 411, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 379, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
The petitioner seeks post arrest bail in case FIR No, 210/2001 dated 27.07.2001 offences under Sections, 380, 458, 411, PPC registered at Police Station Saddar Mian Channu District Khanewal with the allegation that the petitioner alongwith his co-accused has committed theft in the house of the complainant and deprived him of colour T.V., electric iron and net cash, hence this case.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the instant case. Further contends that there is delay of seven months and five days in lodging of the F.I.R., which has not been explained. Further contends that according to the contents of F.I.R., Sections 379 & 458 P.P.C. is not made out. The petitioner is behind the bars since his arrest and no useful purpose would be served by detaining him in jail for an indefinite period.
Challan has been submitted to the learned trial Court but no progress has been made.
3. The learned DPG appearing on behalf of the State has vehemently opposed the bail petition by arguing that the petitioner is involved in the offence, which is heinous in nature and that during the course of investigation, the petitioners have been guilty of the offence.
4. I have heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
5. The record shows that there is no direct evidence to connect the petitioner with the commission of an offence. During the investigation no identification Parade has been held. The petitioner is behind the bars since his arrest and no useful purpose would be served by detaining him in jail for indefinite period. Challan has been submitted in the Court but no progress has been made as yet.
This all is sufficient to bring the case of the petitioner within the ambit of further inquiry.
6. In this view of the matter, this bail petition is allowed and the petitioner is admitted to post arrest bail subject to his furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs, 3,00,000/- (Rupees three lac only) with