Imran Haider vs The State And Another
This is a post-arrest bail petition filed under Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 in respect of an F.I.R. registered under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to post-arrest bail in light of unexplained delay in lodging the F.I.R., omission of the petitioner's name from a subsequently filed private complaint despite a prior completed inquiry, and whether his case fell within the purview of further inquiry. The Lahore High Court held that the unexplained delay, the omission of the petitioner's name from the private complaint despite the inquiry report predating it, and the completion of investigation rendered the case one of further inquiry under subsection (2) of Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The court established the principle that mere heinousness of an offence is no ground to refuse bail to an accused person who otherwise makes out a case for further inquiry, and that continuous incarceration serves no useful purpose when further investigation is complete.
- Does an unexplained delay in lodging the F.I.R. and the omission of an accused's name from a subsequently filed private complaint bring the case within the scope of further inquiry under Section 497(2), Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Is the mere heinousness of an offence sufficient ground to refuse post-arrest bail to an accused person?
- Whether completion of investigation and lack of requirement of the accused for further investigation justify granting post-arrest bail?
- Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 34, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 161, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER ABDUL SAMI KHAN, J. - Through this petition under Section 497, Cr.P.C. Imran Haider petitioner has sought bail after arrest in case F.I.R. No., 189/12, dated 24.06.2012 registered at Police Station Shahpur Sadar, District Sargodha in respect of offences under Section 302, P.P.C, read with Section 34, P.P.C.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner has been roped in this case by the complainant with mala fide intention and ulterior motives after joining hands with the Ideal police. The petitioner has nothing to do with occurrence he has been made scapegoat to save the skin of the senior police officers. There is a delay of four days in 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 after due deliberations and consultations. The complainant has filed a private complaint wherein the present petitioner has not been arrayed as an accused which fact alone brings the case of the petitioner within the ambit of further inquiry; Even otherwise on merits the petitioner is not named in the F.I.R, and his name has been introduced in this case at a belated stage. According to the Post- mortem Examination Report the injuries seen in the body of the deceased have not contributed towards the death of the deceased. Mere heinousness of offence is no ground to refuse bail to an accused person. The petitioner is behind the bars since 23.08.2012, investigation qua the present petitioner is complete, the petitioner is previous non-convict, never involved in such-like cases and the person of the petitioner is no more required for the purpose of further investigation, therefore, his further incarceration would not serve any beneficial purpose.
3. On the other hand the learned Deputy Prosecutor-General assisted by the learned counsel for the complainant after going through the record submits that the petitioner has actively participated in the occurrence because one Agha Hasan, SI who is an eye-witness and has seen the present petitioner alongwith other constable inflicting torture to the deceased. There are other two witnesses of last-seen evidence namely Rabnawaz and Allah Bakhsh. The petitioner is equally liable for the act and omission of his co-accused. The offence with which the petitioner is charged falls within the. Prohibitory clause of Section 497, Cr.P.C. There is ample evidence in shape of statements under Section 161, Cr.P.C, got recorded by the prosecution witnesses during the investigation of this case. There is absolutely no mala fide on the part of the complainant to falsely involve the petitioner in this case. During the investigation of this case the petitioner has been found guilty. The learned counsel for the complainant at the end submits that the petitioner could not be arrayed in the private complaint because die inquiry was completed after institution of private complaint.
4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record of this case with their able assistance. It has been noticed by this Court that the there is a delay of four days in registration of the P.I.R, which has not been explained by the complainant. Admittedly the complainant has filed a private complaint but astonishingly in the list of the accused the name of the petitioner is not available. The contention of the learned counsel for the complainant that the name of the petitioner reveal later on when the inquiry report has come on record has no weight because a perusal of the inquiry report shows that the inquiry was completed on 20.09.2012 whereas die private complainant was filed by the complainant on 26.09.2012 and this fact made the case of prosecution to be doubtful as far as the petitioner is concerned. Mere heinousness of offence is no ground to refuse bail to an accused-person who otherwise becomes entitled for the same relief. The investigation of this case qua the petitioner is complete, he is behind the bars since 23.08,2012, his person is not required for the purpose of further investigation, therefore, his continuous incarceration in jail would not serve any beneficial purpose at this stage.
6. For what has been discussed above the case against the petitioner calls for further inquiry into his guilt within the purview of subsection (2) of Section 497, Cr.P.C. This petition is, therefore, allowed and the petitioner is admitted to bail subject to his furnishing bail bond in die sum of Rs. 100,000/- (Rupees one hundred thousand only) with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned Trial Court.