GHAUS BAKHSH alias GHAUSU vs STATE and another
This matter concerns a petition for post-arrest bail filed by an accused charged under Section 365-A of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for the alleged abduction of a victim for ransom. The core legal questions were whether the significant delay in lodging the First Information Report (FIR) and the contradictions between the victim's statement and the FIR allegations warranted the grant of bail, and whether the accused's involvement in other similar cases precluded such relief. The Court held that the petitioner was entitled to post-arrest bail. It determined that the unexplained delay of over fourteen months in reporting the occurrence, coupled with the victim's statement negating the prosecution's narrative, established a case for further inquiry. Furthermore, the Court clarified that mere involvement in other pending cases, without any prior convictions, does not bar the grant of bail. The key principle laid down is that where the prosecution fails to explain a substantial delay in reporting a heinous crime and the victim's testimony contradicts the FIR, the case requires further inquiry, thereby entitling the accused to bail.
- Does an unexplained delay of over one year in lodging an FIR for abduction constitute a ground for further inquiry in a bail application?
- Can an accused be denied bail solely on the basis of pending cases of a similar nature where no conviction has been secured?
- Does a contradiction between the victim's statement and the FIR allegations justify the grant of post-arrest bail?
- Section 365-A, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
The petitioner has been arrested in this case on 06.02.2012 in a FIR Bearing No. 301, dated 23.10.2011, registered under Section 365-A, P.P.C. at Police Station Bhong, Tehsil Sadiqabad, District Rahim Yar Khan, for abduction of Ghulam Qadir, brother of the complainant, for the purpose of ransom of Rs.
500,000/-. Allegedly, after receiving the amount of Rs. 300,000/-, the accused persons released the abductee Ghulam Qadir.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that as per contents of the FIR, role against the petitioner is that he facilitated his principal co-accused Badla Lathani, who allegedly contacted the complainant party for payment of ransom and the present petitioner never contacted the complainant party. for ransom. Further contends that there is a delay of more than 14 months in lodging of the FIR. It is contended that statement of the alleged abductee-victim is totally negating the story narrated in the FIR, as according to his statement, he was released by the accused after 1(1/2) months of the occurrence whereas in the FIR it is categorically stated that the alleged abductee was released after payment of ransom amount on 22.10.2011, after 14 months of the occurrence.
3. Learned Deputy Prosecutor General assisted by the learned counsel for the complainant opposed this bail petition on the grounds that there are three other cases of similar nature, which are pending against the present petitioner, hence, he is not entitled for the grant of bail; that the complainant and the witnesses have no enmity with the petitioner to falsely involve him in this heinous offence; that the petitioner is nominated in the. FIR; that delay perse is no ground to enlarge the petitioner on bail in an offence falling within the prohibitory clause and; that at time of receipt of ransom amount, petitioner was present there.
5. Arguments heard. Record perused.
6. The occurrence in this case took place on 10.08.2010 whereas the matter was reported to the police on 23.10.2011 i.e. after one year, two months & 13 days. The prosecution case, according to the complainant, is that a few days ago, the accused persons including the present petitioner received the amount of Rs. 300,000/-, which was shared by them there and then and after receiving the ransom money, Ghulam Qadir was released i.e. on the same day 22.10.2011. Ghulam Qadir, a star witness of the occurrence, made his statement on 23.10.2011 negating the story of his abduction as narrated in the FIR, which happens to be registered long ago on 10.08.2010. On a Court question, learned counsel for the complainant as well as the learned Deputy Prosecutor General remained unable to satisfy us to cover-up the period of 14 months from the date of occurrence. On this score alone, case of the petitioner requires further probe into his guilt.
7. So far as the argument raised by the learned DPG as well as learned counsel for the complainant that the petitioner is involved in three case of alike nature, on a Court question, learned counsel for the petitioner has stated at bar that in two out of three cases, the petitioner had been acquitted whereas the third one is pending trial, which fact remained un-rebutted by the other side; meaning thereby, in none of the case, the petitioner has suffered conviction. In Jamal-ud-Din alias Zubair Khan us. The State (2012 SCM R 573), it has been held as under: "The argument that the petitioner has been involved in two 'other cases of similar nature would not come in the way of grant of petition so along as there is nothing on the record to show that he has been convicted in any one of them".
8. For what has been stated above, we find that the petitioner has succeeded to make-out a case of further inquiry. Resultantly, we allow this application and admit the petitioner to post-arrest bail subject to his furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs. 200,000/- (Rupees two hundred thousand only) with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court.