Naseer Ahmad And Another vs The State And Another
This criminal petition arises from a request for post-arrest bail by the petitioners, Naseer Ahmad and Muhammad Saeed, who were charged under Sections 457, 380, and 411 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 in connection with an F.I.R. registered at Police Station Sarai Sidhu. The core legal question was whether the petitioners were entitled to bail given the lack of specific details regarding the alleged stolen property in the F.I.R. and the significant delay in the trial proceedings. The Lahore High Court held that because the F.I.R. failed to specify the property involved and it remained unclear whether the petitioners were apprehended inside or outside the premises, the case against the petitioners required further inquiry. Furthermore, the court noted that despite the submission of the challan, no prosecution witnesses had been examined after six months of incarceration. Consequently, the court granted the petition for post-arrest bail, establishing the principle that the absence of material particulars in an F.I.R. combined with inordinate delay in the commencement of trial proceedings constitutes valid grounds for the grant of bail.
- Does the failure to specify the details of stolen property in an F.I.R. constitute grounds for further inquiry in a bail application?
- Can the lack of progress in trial proceedings and the failure to examine witnesses after six months justify the grant of post-arrest bail?
- Is a case eligible for further inquiry when it is unclear whether the accused were apprehended inside or outside the scene of the alleged crime?
- Section 457, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 380, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 411, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
KH. IMTIAZ AHMAD, J. - The petitioners seek their post arrest bail in a case registered against them vide F.I.R. No. 167, dated 20.4.2010 under Sections 457, 380, 411, P.P.C. At Police Station Sarai Sidhu, District Khanewal.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that perusal of the F.I.R itself shows that the alleged theft has not been completed and prior to it, the petitioners were apprehended. Further contended that there is no detail of the alleged property, which the petitioners wanted to take away and that the case of the petitioners is of further inquiry. Further contended that the petitioners are behind the bars for about six months but there is no progress in the case and even not a single witness has been recorded.
3. On the other hand, learned D.P.G. Opposed the petition and contended that the petitioners are nominated in the F.I.R. And the stolen property was scrap and the offence under Section 457, P.P.C.
Under the prohibitory clause.
4. Arguments heard. Record perused.
5. Admittedly in the F.I.R., there is no detail of the property which petitioner wanted to take away.
Even it is not clear that whether the petitioners were apprehended from outside the said scrap store or from inside the store. .Thus on this aspect, the case of the petitioners definitely requires further inquiry. The challan has been submitted in the Court but often even lapse of about six months, not even a single witness has been recorded.
6. For the foregoing reasons, this petition is allowed and the petitioners Naseer Ahmad and Muhammad Saeed are admitted to bail subject to their furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs.
1,00,000/- (Rupees one Lac only) each with one surety each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned Trial Court. Bail after arrest granted.