MUHAMMAD ASHRAF vs THE STATE And Another
This petition for post-arrest bail arises from an F.I.R. registered under sections 457, 380, 427, 411, 337-H(2), 148, and 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, concerning allegations of looting and arson. The core legal question is whether the petitioner is entitled to bail given the circumstances of the case, including a significant delay in lodging the F.I.R., the large number of accused persons, and the lack of recovery of incriminating evidence from the petitioner. The court held that the petitioner is entitled to bail, observing that the three-month delay in registration of the F.I.R. casts doubt on the prosecution's case, and the absence of any recovery from the petitioner further weakens the allegations. The court emphasized that when an offence does not fall within the prohibitory clause of section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, and the accused is no longer required for investigation, keeping them in custody serves no useful purpose. Consequently, the court admitted the petitioner to bail, finding the case to be one of further inquiry.
- Does an unexplained three-month delay in lodging an F.I.R. create sufficient doubt to warrant the grant of bail?
- Is an accused entitled to bail when no incriminating articles or weapons are recovered from them during investigation?
- Does a case fall within the category of 'further inquiry' when the offence charged does not fall within the prohibitory clause of section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Section 457, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 380, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 427, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 411, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 337-H(2), Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 148, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 149, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 395, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 336, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER SH. NAJAM-UL-HASSAN, J.---Petitioner seeks post-arrest bail in F.I.R.
No. 153, dated 25-5-2004 under sections 457/380/427/411/337-H(2)/148/ 149, P.P.C. Registered at Police Station Qila Didar Singh, Gujranwala.
2. Precisely the prosecution story is that on 16-2-2004 thirty four persons entered into the house of the complainant looted all house-hold articles while detaining them in the room and thereafter these persons went to the houses of relatives of the complainant and also looted their articles and put on fire their houses. Occurrence was the result of a murder which has taken place in the same village on 14-2-2004 in which the relative of the petitioner and other accused was murdered, and as such the case was registered on 25-5-2004 after delay of three months.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there is unexplained delay of three months in lodging of F.I.R. Which creates doubt in the prosecution case; that in this case 67 persons have been nominated out of them almost 60-persons were specifically nominated, many persons have been declared innocent by the police. It is not instantly possible to remember their names, that the case was registered due to enmity which is duly mentioned in the F.I.R, itself. Further submits that the petitioner was arrested in this case on 13-10-2009 and during investigation nothing was recovered from him; that no looted article or weapon was recovered from the petitioner, as such the involvement of the petitioner is doubtful. Further states that 19-persons have already been declared innocent by the police which makes the case of the prosecution highly doubtful.
4. On the other hand, learned Deputy Prosecutor-General assisted by the learned counsel for the complainant contends that the petitioner has committed the offence of heinous nature; that the petitioner along with others looted the house hold articles of the complainant and put the same on fire and as such section 395, P.P.C. Has been made out and even section 336 P.P.C. Was not mentioned although the houses were put on fire. On Court question it has been informed that during investigation nothing was recovered from the petitioner whereas other co-accused got recovered the certain articles.
5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the record. In this case so many persons have been involved as accused which makes the prosecution case doubtful. Nothing has been recovered from the petitioner. There is unexplained delay of three months in lodging of F.I.R. Which creates doubt in the prosecution case. The murder has taken place in the same village and for that the police must have reached in the village during that period. It is for the prosecution to establish that the petitioner involved in this case but there is no evidence available on the record except that of ocular evidence against so many persons including the petitioner. Ten co-accused of the petitioner are still behind the bars and certain are not even arrested. The petitioner is no more required to the police for further investigation. Offence does not fall within the prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C. In this situation, the case of the petitioner becomes that of further inquiry. The petitioner is behind the bars for the, last four months.
No useful purpose would be served to keep the petitioner in jail for indefinite period.
6. For what has been discussed above, this petition is accepted and the petitioner is admitted to bail subject to his furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs.2,00,000 with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of learned trial Court.