MUHAMMAD IQBAL alias KALI vs THE STATE and another
The petitioner sought post-arrest bail in case F.I.R. No. 59 registered at Police Station Farid Town, Sahiwal, for offences under sections 392 and 411 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to post-arrest bail considering the delayed registration of the F.I.R. and the lack of direct recovery from him. The Lahore High Court held that the unexplained delay of 38 days in lodging the F.I.R., coupled with the fact that no recovery was directly effected from the petitioner but rather from his brother, made the case one of further inquiry under section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The court admitted the petitioner to post-arrest bail, laying down the principle that unexplained delay in lodging the F.I.R. and absence of direct recovery from the accused warrant further inquiry into his alleged guilt.
- Whether unexplained delay in lodging the F.I.R. makes out a case for further inquiry for the grant of post-arrest bail?
- Does the absence of direct recovery from the accused justify release on bail when recovery is allegedly effected from a co-accused or relative?
- Can a case fall within the scope of further inquiry when the accused and complainant are residents of the same area but the F.I.R. is delayed?
- Section 392, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 411, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
'S. ALI HASSAN RIZVI, J.---The petitioner seeks post-arrest bail in case F.I.R. No,59 registered at Police Station Farid Town, Sahiwal on 4-3-2008 for offences under sections 392/411, P.P.C.
2. Allegation against the petitioner was that on 25-1-2008 at 9-00 p.m. When the complainant was proceeding towards his house and so reached near Dairy Farm at the distance of 7-acres two unknown persons who were armed with pistols stopped him. The petitioner was proceeding on motorcycle then the co-accused also surrounded him and made search of his body, snatched Rs,9090 and mobile phone. When other two persons namely Anees and Saleem came there the accused also stopped them and snatched the amount from Jacket. In the meanwhile a rickshaw driver came there and in the light the petitioner was identified. It was Muhammad Iqbal alias Kali and others. The petitioner also fired with his pistol and ran away taking the benefit of dark.
3. Argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that the occurrence has allegedly taken place on 25-1-2008 whereas the case was registered on 4-3-2008 after a delay of 38 days which is not explained; that the petitioner and the complainant are the residents of the same village; the story is improbable; that nothing has been recovered from the petitioner. However, according to the record recovery of Rs,3000 has been shown to have been effected from the brother of the petitioner. Further argued that previously there was an alternation in between the petitioner and the complainant and he has been involved in order to avenge; that the F.I.R. Was lodged with the deliberation and to involve the innocent person.
4, Learned counsel for the State has opposed all these grounds that the petitioner along with the accused had committed a heinous offence falling within the prohibitory clause; that there is no proof with the petitioner to establish enmity with the complainant to involve him falsely in the case; that the petitioner not only, looted the complainant but also the other people who were travelling there.
5. Heard. It has been noticed that the petitioner and the complainant are residents of the same area, so the identification at spot was not difficult. The delay in F.I.R. For 38 days reveals that the complainant might not be into knowledge of the petitioner to be one of those accused. Since the petitioner and the complainant are the residents of same area which has not been confronted while the delay in lodging of the F.I.R. And no recovery was directly effected from petitioner but from his brother. These facts make it a case of further inquiry, therefore, the petitioner is admitted to bail subject to furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs,50,000 (Rupees fifty thousand only) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court.