KHAN alias KHAN MUHAMMAD MANGRIO and 2 others vs THE STATE
This matter concerns an application for pre-arrest bail filed by the applicants, who were charged under Section 381-A of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 in connection with an FIR registered for the alleged theft of a tractor. The core legal question was whether the applicants were entitled to the concession of pre-arrest bail given the circumstances of the case, including the delay in lodging the FIR and the status of co-accused persons. The Court held that the applicants were entitled to confirmation of their interim pre-arrest bail. The ratio of the decision rests on the finding that the FIR was lodged with an inordinate delay of over three months without a plausible explanation, creating a strong possibility of false implication. Furthermore, the Court noted that the charged offence did not fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, and that the rule of consistency applied as a co-accused had already been granted bail by the trial court. Consequently, the interim bail was confirmed.
- Does an inordinate delay in lodging an FIR without a plausible explanation justify the grant of pre-arrest bail?
- Does the rule of consistency apply when a co-accused has already been granted bail by the trial court?
- Are offences not falling within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 generally entitled to the concession of bail?
- Section 381-A, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
' KHADIM HUSSAIN M. SHAIKH, J.---Through this application, applicants have sought pre-arrest Bail in Crime No, 85 of 2008, Police Station Darri, Larkana, for offence under section 381-A, P.P. C .
2. Prosecution case in nutshell is that, the complainant owns a tractor and one Muhammad Sulleman Mangerio was the driver of the complainant. It is alleged that on 16-2-2008 said driver Muhammad Sulleman accompanying present applicants/accused came to complainant on the tractor and had taken keys of garage from him for parking tractor therein later on the complainant came to know that the driver had not parked his tractor in the garage, therefore, he approached elders of the accused and a private `faisla' was made between the parties by their nekmard Ghulam Mustafa Khan and ultimately the complainant appeared at Police Station Darri and lodged his F.I.R.
Learned Advocate for the applicants has mainly contended that the F.I.R. Is delayed for three months and eighteen days without plausible explanation for such an inordinate delay; that the applicants have been involved in this ease by the complainant by cooking up false story due to the enmity with mala fide intention; that offence with which the applicants are charged carries punishment up to seven years and does not fall within prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C., that co' accused Muhammad Sulleman is on bail granted by trial Court and on merits as well as on the basis of rule of consistency the present applicants are also entitled for concession of bail. He lastly submitted that the applicants have joined the trial and are attending the trial Court.
4. Learned State counsel concedes to confirmation of interim pre-arrest bail to applicants.
5. I have considered the arguments advanced by the, learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the police papers, I find that the alleged incident is shown to have taken place on 16- 2-2008 and the F.I.R. Was lodged on 3-6-2008 and due to such an inordinate delay, possibility of false implication of the applicants cannot be ruled out, the offence with which the applicants are charged does not fall within prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C., and co-accused Sulleman is on bail granted to him by the learned trial Court as stated at Bar by learned advocate for the applicants, who have also joined the trial. In these circumstances, the interim pre-arrest bail earlier granted to the applicants vide order, dated 15-4-2009, is hereby confirmed on the same terms and conditions.
Cited by 1 case
- KASHIF KHAN Versus State 2017 YLRN 440