ABID HUSSAIN vs The STATE and anothers
This matter concerns a petition for post-arrest bail filed by the accused, Abid Hussain, in relation to F.I.R. No. 371 of 2012, registered at Police Station Saddar, District Pakpattan Sharif, for offences under sections 376, 337A, and 338C of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to the concession of bail given the circumstances of the case, including a significant delay in the registration of the F.I.R. and the nature of the allegations. The Court held that the petitioner was entitled to bail, determining that the case fell within the ambit of further inquiry under section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The Court observed that the unexplained fifteen-day delay in lodging the F.I.R. and the absence of a specific rape allegation against the petitioner in the F.I.R. created sufficient doubt. The Court established the principle that the mere heinousness of an offence is not a valid ground to refuse bail, and the benefit of doubt can be extended to an accused at the bail stage.
- Does an unexplained delay in the registration of an F.I.R. constitute a ground for further inquiry under section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Can the mere heinousness of an alleged offence be a sufficient ground to refuse bail to an accused?
- Is the benefit of doubt available to an accused at the post-arrest bail stage?
- Section 376, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 337A, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 338C, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 497(2), Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
' ABDUL SAMI KHAN, J.---Through this petition under section 497, Cr.P.C. The petitioner has sought his bail after arrest in case F.I.R. No,371 of 2012 dated 3-7-2012 under sections 376, 337A & 338C P.P.C., Police Station Saddar, District Pakpattan Sharif.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner is innocent; he has been falsely involved in this case by the complainant who herself is a woman of dubious character; there is a delay of fifteen days in the registration of F.I.R. Which has not been explained by the complainant, which clearly shows that the F.I.R. Has been got recorded with due deliberations and consultations; even according to the contents of the F.I.R. There is no allegation of rape against the present petitioner; the provisions of section 376, P.P.C. Are not attracted in this case as far as the present petitioner is concerned; he is previous non-convict and never involved in any other case; he is behind the bars since 27-8-2012; investigation of the case is complete and he is no more required for further investigation; his further incarceration in jail would not serve any useful purpose.
3. On the other hand learned Deputy District Public Prosecutor, after going through the record, has vehemently opposed this bail petition on the grounds that the petitioner is named in the F.I.R. With specific role attributed to him; during investigation he has been found guilty by the investigating officer and the offence with which the petitioner is charged falls under the prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C.; it is a heinous offence which is against the society and the petitioner does not deserve the concession of bail.
4. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Deputy District Public Prosecutor and also gone through the record of this case. It has been noticed by this Court that there is a delay of fifteen days in the registration of F.I.R. Which has not been explained by the complainant. It has been noticed that there is no allegation of rape in the F.I.R.; the contention of learned Deputy District Public Prosecutor that there is allegation of rape against the present petitioner in the complaint filed by the complainant for registration of F.I.R. Has no force as there is nothing on record regarding this fact that an omission has been made by A.S.-I. Who has drafted the F.I.R. That he has omitted the portion in the F.I.R. Through which allegation of rape has been leveled against the present petitioners; deliberately or inadvertently the victim had tendered her affidavit in favour of her husband Arshad Ali and his father Ameer that they are innocent; there are serious allegations against both of them in the F.I.R.; so this fact alone is sufficient to bring the case of the present petitioner under the ambit of further inquiry covered by subsection (2) of section 497,. Cr.P.C.; it is settled principle of law that benefit of doubt can be extended to accused even at bail' stage; the petitioner was arrested in this case on 27-8-2012 and since then he is behind the bars and is no more required for D further investigation; his further incarceration in jail would not serve any useful purpose; mere heinousness of offence is no ground to refuse E bail.
5. For what has been discussed above, the case of the petitioner becomes one of further inquiry covered by subsection (2) of section 497, Cr.P.C. This petition is, therefore, allowed and the petitioner is granted bail after arrest subject to his furnishing bail bond in the sum of Rs,100,000 (Rupees one lac only) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned Trial Court.
6. The observations made above are tentative in nature and are strictly confined to the decision of this bail petition only.