HASSAN SHAIR vs STATE & another
The petitioner Hassan Shair sought post-arrest bail in a case registered under Section 365-A of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, relating to the alleged abduction of the complainant's brother for ransom. The core legal question was whether the petitioner made out a case for further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, given the delayed FIR, the acquittal of co-accused on the basis of the complainant's exonerating affidavit, and doubtful recoveries. The Lahore High Court held that the unexplained 14 to 15-month delay in registration of the FIR, the acquittal of co-accused who allegedly received the ransom, and the lack of incriminating data connecting the petitioner to the crime brought his case within the purview of further inquiry. The court accepted the petition and admitted the petitioner to post-arrest bail. The key principles laid down include that inordinate delay in FIR registration creates a presumption of false involvement, that mere absconsion is not a ground to refuse bail if the case otherwise warrants further inquiry, and that doubtful recoveries do not preclude bail.
- Does an unexplained inordinate delay in the registration of an FIR create a presumption of false involvement entitling the accused to post-arrest bail?
- Can mere absconsion serve as a sole ground for the refusal of bail when the case otherwise falls within the scope of further inquiry?
- Whether the acquittal of co-accused on the basis of a compromise or exonerating affidavit by the complainant renders the case against a remaining accused one of further inquiry?
- Section 365-A, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 512, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 497(2), Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
Through the instant petition, the petitioner Hassan Shair seeks his post-arrest bail in a case arising out of FIR No, 11, dated 16.01.2011, registered with Police Station Saddar, Sadiqabad, District Rahim Yar Khan, under Sections 365-A, P.P.C.
2. Precisely, the prosecution story as per FIR is that the complainant's brother Muhammad Shafique was abducted 14/15 months back and he by selling his agricultural land, gold ornaments of his sister and his shop, he paid an amount of Rs, 11,00,000/- as ransom to Hassan Shair, Khushi Muhammad and Bhoora and then he got released his brother Muhammad Shafique.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the allegation against the petitioner is that of abduction of Muhammad Shafique, but there is no evidence available on the record to connect him with the said crime. He further submits that the registration of the case is delayed by 14/15 months, for which no explanation has been given. It is next contended that allegedly the amount of ransom i,e, Rs, 11,00,000/- was paid to Bhoora and Khushi Muhammad, who had been acquitted of the charge on 04.04.2011 due to affidavit sworn by the complainant exonerating them, hence, the prosecution story to the extent of the present petitioner has become doubtful, thus, the petitioner, in no manner, is connected with the offence. It is lastly contended that the petitioner is a previous non-convict, therefore, in the scenario of explained facts, petitioner's case falls within the ambit of further inquiry; as a result whereof the petitioner is entitled to be released on bail.
4. On the other hand, learned Deputy Prosecutor General assisted by the learned counsel for the complainant opposed the bail, petition on the grounds that the petitioner is nominated in the FIR with specific allegation of abduction of complainant's brother. It is contended that the petitioner is the main culprit who after registration of case absconded and thus was declared a proclaimed offender and after his arrest, he led to the recovery of Pistol .30-Bore and part-money of ransom amounting to Rs,50,000/-. It is further submitted that there is sufficient incriminating material to connect the petitioner with the commission of a heinous offence, which is punishable with life imprisonment, hence, he is not entitled for the concession of bail.
5. We have heard the arguments and perused the record.
6. The allegation against the petitioner is that he made a telephonic call demanding ransom amount against abduction of complainant's brother Muhammad Shafique but no data connecting the present petitioner with the commission of offence has ever been collected during the course of investigation. The complainant himself exonerated the two main accused of FIR namely Khushi Muhammad and Bhoora, who had allegedly received the increased amount of ransom and they have been acquitted vide judgment dated 4.4.2011 passed by the learned Judge, Anti-Terrorism Court, Bahawalpur, on the basis of affidavit submitted by the complainant. Moreover, vide Zimni No, 32 dated 9.5.2011, the complainant also got recorded a statement exonerating the other co- accused, who was implicated through supplementary statement, named Mian Muhammad Hanif.
On the other hand, the conduct of the present petitioner is that when he came to know about proceedings initiated against him under Section 512, Cr.P.C., he surrendered himself before the learned trial Court. Even otherwise, mere absconsion is no ground for refusal of bail if the petitioner's case otherwise becomes one of further inquiry. Prima facie, no evidence is available against the petitioner qua abduction of Muhammad Shafique or receiving the ransom amount.
7. Besides, the occurrence is alleged to have taken place 14/15 months prior to registration of the FIR. It is also mentioned in the FIR that the abductee Muhammad Shafique returned back after one month of the occurrence. If this be so, on return of Muhammad Shafique, the complainant could set the criminal law in motion and got recovered his amount of ransom effectively. When confronted with this, the learned counsel for the complainant tried to explain that due to non- cooperation of the local police and making applications to different forums and facing inquiries, the time was consumed for which the delay has occurred. We have noticed that the first application for registration of the case was made on 25.09.2009 wherein the same period i,e, 14/15 months has been C written. Be that as it may, the complainant could avail the remedy by way of approaching the Court of competent jurisdiction for registration of a case. We are considered in our view that such a long delay in registration of the FIR gives rise to a presumption of the petitioner being falsely involved in this case. In addition to it, we have also noticed that neither in the FIR nor in the supplementary statement got recorded by the complainant, the petitioner was ever shown equipped with Pistol .30- bore, therefore, the recovery of such weapon is doubtful. With regard to recovered amount of Rs,50,000/-, it cannot be said at this stage, that it was the same amount, which had been received by co-accused of the petitioner, hence; the recovery of said amount is also doubtful.
8. All the above narrated facts bring the case of the petitioner within the purview of Section 497(2), Cr.P.C. Petitioner is behind the bars since 02.05.2011 and is no more required by the police for any purpose Resultantly, the instant petition is accepted and the petitioner is admitted to post-arrest bail subject to his furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs,2,00,000- (rupees two lacs) with one surety in-the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court.