INTIZAR HUSSAIN vs THE STATE and another
This criminal petition arises from a request for post-arrest bail filed by the petitioner, Intizar Hussain, who was implicated in a criminal case alongside five other co-accused. The petitioner contended that he was falsely implicated and that his case was on similar footing to that of his co-accused, Abdul Ghaffar, who had already been granted bail by the High Court. The State and the complainant opposed the bail, arguing that the F.I.R. delay was explained, the petitioner's case was distinguishable from the co-accused, and that the offence fell within the prohibitory clause of the relevant criminal procedure law. Upon review, the Court noted that the F.I.R. was lodged with a three-month delay and that the complainant had previously exonerated three other co-accused. Finding that the petitioner's case warranted further inquiry into his guilt under the statutory provisions for bail, the Court accepted the petition. The ratio established is that where the case of an accused is analogous to that of a co-accused already granted bail, and the circumstances suggest the need for further investigation, the accused is entitled to the concession of bail.
- Is an accused entitled to bail if his case is on similar footing to a co-accused who has already been granted bail?
- Does a delay in lodging an F.I.R. constitute a ground for further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- When does a case fall within the scope of further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Section 497(1), Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 497(2), Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
' KHAWAJA MUHAMMAD SHARIF, C.J.---Learned counsel for the petitioner Intizar Hussain submits that the petitioner along with his two brothers namely, Abdul Ghaffar and Intizar Hussain was falsely implicated in this case. According to learned counsel, in all six persons were named as accused in the F.I.R. And out of them, three were allowed bail on the basis of statement made by the complainant. It is maintained that case of the present petitioner is on similar footing to that of Abdul Ghaffar, co-accused who was allowed bail by this Court vide order dated 19-11-20Q9 passed in Criminal Miscellaneous No,14421/B of 2009.
2. On the other hand, the learned Deputy Prosecutor-General assisted by learned counsel for the complainant submits that delay of three months in lodging the F.I.R. Is fully explained in the F.I.R.
Itself; case of the present petitioner is distinguishable from the case of his co-accused Abdul Ghaffar who was allowed bail by this Court; recovery was effected from the petitioner and that the offence falls within the prohibitory clause of section 497(1), Cr.P.C.
3. Heard. The petitioner along with his two real brothers and three others was involved in the F.I.R.
Which was recorded after delay of three months. The complainant has let off three co-accused of the petitioner by making a statement before the Court. Abdul Ghaffar, real brother of the present petitioner was allowed bail by this Court vide order dated 19-11-2009 passed in Criminal Miscellaneous No,14421/B of 2009. The petitioner is behind the bars for the last three months.
Rs.20,000 was recovered from the petitioner while from Abdul Ghaffar, co-accused of the petitioner, a cheque was recovered which, was bounced. Taking all the facts together, I am of the opinion that the case of the petitioner is fully covered by subsection (2) to section 497, Cr.P.C. Requiring further probe into his guilt. Resultantly, this petition is accepted and the petitioner shall be released on bail provided A he furnishes bail bonds in the sum of rupees one lac with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of Deputy Registrar (Judi.) of this Court.