MUHAMMAD SIDDIQUE alias SAIF KHAN vs THE STATE
This bail application concerns an accused, Muhammad Siddique alias Saif Khan, booked under Section 381 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for an alleged theft at a factory. The core legal question was whether the applicant was entitled to bail given the nature of the offence and the alleged delay in reporting the incident. The applicant argued that the case did not fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, making bail a matter of right, and highlighted significant discrepancies in the FIR, specifically the unexplained delay between the alleged time of the incident and the reporting to the factory owner. The Court held that the case required further inquiry due to the implausibility of the alleged theft's execution and the unexplained reporting delay. The Court affirmed that since the maximum punishment for the offence is seven years, which is below the ten-year threshold of the prohibitory clause, the applicant was entitled to bail as a matter of right. Bail was consequently granted subject to surety.
- Is an accused entitled to bail as a matter of right if the offence charged does not fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Does an unexplained delay in reporting an incident in an FIR constitute sufficient grounds for further inquiry in a bail application?
- Section 381, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 497(1), Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
1. ' SALMAN HAMID, J.---Muhammad Siddique alias Swaif Khan (Applicant) is booked under F.I.R.
2. No,784 of 2011 dated 11-8-2011 of Police Station Korangi Industrial Area for offences, punishable under section 381/34 P P. C ' Per F.I.R. Muhammad Shabbir Chughtai (Complainant) who is a guard in factory reported to its owner that theft has been committed by the applicant together with other persons at about 8-00 p.m., on 10-8-2011. The applicant after lodging of above F.I.R. Was arrested.
3. ' Learned counsel for the applicant argued that in the first instance since the case does not fall within prohibitory clause of section 497(1), Cr.P.C., therefore, as a matter of right and not of grace, the applicant is entitled to bail and on merits it was argued that on the face of it, the contents of F.I.R. Are made up and concocted inasmuch as according to the complainant, he noticed commission of robbery around 8-00 p.m., but reported to owner of factory around 10-30 p.m., without showing and/or giving any reason for such delay of information to owner of the factory. It was argued that this was enough reason to show that the applicant has been implicated falsely in F.I.R.
4. ' Learned State counsel only argued that since name of applicant appears in F.I.R., it is apparent that he had committed robbery for which he is charged.
5. ' I have looked into the contents of the F.I.R. And noticed that indeed it says that complainant came to know of robbery at 8-00 p.m., but for some unknown reasons such was reported to owner of the factory at about 10-30 p.m. It is also not clear as to how such a huge quantity of leather and 650 LCD computers were taken away by applicant inasmuch as it is mentioned that one Mazda was brought in factory without disclosing its registration number or any other particulars and if the robbery was under progress of such a magnitude why police was not called as such robbery was not possible in a short span of time. It was also very convenient for the complainant to have reported the incident when it was in progress. This was not reported.
6. ' In view of the above, case requires further probe. Even otherwise, since maximum punishment less than 10 years and only to the extent of 7 years is provided for the offence. Applicant is entitled to bail as a matter of right and therefore, he is granted bail, subject to his furnishing solvent surety in the sum of Rs,100,000 and PR bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of trial Court. Application disposed of accordingly.