ASHIQ HUSSAIN alias AKHTAR vs THE STATE and anothers
This petition for post-arrest bail arises from an F.I.R. registered under Sections 337-A(iii) and 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The petitioner sought bail, challenging the prosecution's case based on significant discrepancies regarding the date of the occurrence and the medical evidence. The court observed that while the alleged occurrence took place on 1-12-2011, the F.I.R. was registered on 4-1-2012. Crucially, the medical examination of the injured occurred on 31-12-2011, with the doctor opining that the injuries were sustained only 2 to 3 hours prior to that examination. The court held that the prosecution's failure to reconcile the timeline between the alleged date of occurrence and the medical findings demonstrated a lack of veracity and misconduct by both the police and the complainant. Consequently, the court found the petitioner entitled to bail, accepting the petition and ordering his release upon furnishing bail bonds. The court further directed the D.I.-G. Faisalabad to conduct an inquiry into the police's conduct regarding the delayed registration and contradictory evidence.
- Does a significant discrepancy between the alleged date of occurrence and the medical report regarding the duration of injuries constitute grounds for granting bail?
- Is the police required to register a criminal case immediately upon receiving information about a cognizable offence?
- Can the High Court direct a departmental inquiry into police conduct while deciding a bail petition?
- Section 337-A(iii), Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 34, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 154, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
' IBAD-UR-REHMAN LODHI, J.---Through this petition, the petitioner seeks post-arrest bail in case F.I.R. No,3 of 2012 dated 4-1-2012 registered under sections 337-A(iii), 34, P.P.C. At Police Station Sahianwala District Faisalabad.
2. The occurrence according to the complainant took place on 1-12-2011 which was reported on 4- 1-2012. According to Medico-legal Report available on record, the injured Faheem Ahmad Shahzad was produced before the Medical Officer on 31-12-2011 and after examining the person before him, the doctor opined with regard to the probable duration in between the injuries and examination as 2 to 3 hours.
What is missing on the part of complainant or prosecution in this case, is the veracity.
3. Keeping in view the above conduct of the prosecution and the complainant, the petitioner, who has been arrested in this case and behind the bars is entitled to be released on bail.
4. In view of what has been discussed above, this petition is accepted and petitioner is ordered to be released on bail subject to his furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs,1,00,000 with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of trial Court.
5. While examining the record of the case, I have noticed that offence which according to the prosecution's own showing was committed on 1-12-2011 and was entered under section 154, Cr.P.C.
With the police on 4-1-2012. The injured Faheem Ahmad Shahzad, however, got medically examined on 31-12-2011 and he was produced before the Medical Officer by the police. The doctor examining the injured gave probable duration in between the injuries and examination as to 2 to 3 hours. This speaks volume about the misconduct on the part of police and also the mischievous conduct of the complainant.
' If the injured was before the police even at least on 31-12-2011 and he was medically examined with the complaint of victim of-criminal offence that criminal offence was to be registered forthwith and when it was registered the Investigating Officer has closed his eyes from the position that injuries which allegedly sustained, by the injured on 1-12-2011 were declared by the doctor to have been sustained on 31-12-2011 from 4-00 p.m. To 7-00 p.m. This should be a sufficient ground for proceeding by the police to recommend discharge of the case but nevertheless the arrest was made, investigation was conducted and still the person allegedly involved in the crime was kept behind the bars.
6. D.I.-G. Faisalabad is directed to probe and conduct inquiry or to arrange some inquiry at the- level of an officer of Superintendent of Police to ascertain the actual position in view of the facts narrated in para 4 above and the outcome of such inquiry would be intimated to this Court through the Deputy Registrar (Judicial) of this Court for perusal by the Court in Chamber.