NAIMAT ULLAH vs THE STATE and another
The petitioner sought post-arrest bail in a case registered under sections 381, 411, and 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 at Police Station Shalimar, Islamabad. The core legal questions involved the unexplained delay of three and a half months in lodging the First Information Report, the evidentiary value of an extra-judicial confession where the named witnesses were neither examined under section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 nor listed in the report under section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, and the reliability of alleged recoveries including a nominal sum and items disputed as belonging to the petitioner's wife. Due to the incomplete judgment text available, a final decision or holding is not rendered within the provided excerpt. The judgment highlights the scrutiny applied by courts to unexplained delays in FIR registration and weak evidentiary links during bail adjudications.
- Does an unexplained delay of three and a half months in lodging the FIR entitle the accused to post-arrest bail?
- What is the evidentiary value of an extra-judicial confession when the witnesses named in the FIR are not examined under section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Can weak or disputed recoveries of minor amounts and personal items connect an accused to the crime for the purpose of withholding bail?
- Section 381, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 411, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 34, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 161, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 173, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
' KH. IMTIAZ AHMAD, J.---The petitioner seeks his post-arrest bail in a case registered against him vide F.I.R. No, 490 dated 3-9-2008 under sections 381, 411 34 P.P.C. Registered at Police Station Shalimar, Islamabad.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the occurrence is dated 5-6-2008 but the F.I.R. Was lodged on 3-9-2008 and there is un-explained delay in lodging of the F.I.R after 3-1/2 month of the occurrence and the explanation furnished by the complainant does not appeal to reason. He contended that occurrence, allegedly had taken place and the articles valuing about more than one crore have been misplaced, then how it is possible that the complainant did not report the matter for the long three months to the police. He further contended that the only evidence against the petitioner extra-judicial confession and the recovery. To the extent of extra judicial confession, the learned counsel for the petitioner contended that in the F.I.R. It was alleged that the petitioner had allegedly confessed before behangir and Shahid witnesses but neither the police recorded the statements of said witnesses under section 161, Cr.P.C. Nor even placed them in column of the witnesses in the report under section 173, Cr.P.C. As far as the recovery is concerned, he contended that recovery of Rs,5,000 is of no help to the prosecution and the other recovery of finger ring and four watches allegedly also do not connect the petitioner with the clime. He further contended that the finger ring is owned by the wife of the petitioner while the recovery of four watches is fictitious and even otherwise there {{1 PAGE MISS 932}}