MUHAMMAD NAWAZ vs The STATE and another
This matter arose out of a post-arrest bail application filed by the petitioner in a case involving an alleged attempt to abduct a woman from her house at night. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to post-arrest bail considering the delay in lodging the FIR, his absence from the initial nomination, and the incomplete nature of the alleged offence. The High Court observed that the petitioner was not named in the FIR, which was lodged after an unexplained delay of sixteen days. Furthermore, according to the prosecution's own case, the alleged abduction remained incomplete and the victim's chastity was not violated. The Court held that these circumstances prima facie brought the petitioner's case within the ambit of further inquiry under section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. Consequently, the High Court accepted the petition and granted post-arrest bail to the petitioner subject to furnishing required bail bonds.
- Whether an unexplained delay of sixteen days in lodging an FIR, combined with non-nomination of the accused, makes out a case of further inquiry for grant of bail?
- Can post-arrest bail be granted where the alleged offence remained incomplete and fell short of the principal crime charged?
- Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
' MAZHAR IQBAL SIDHU, J.---On the night falling in between 29/30-7-2011 when. Mst. Sumera Bibi- alleged victim was asleep in her house along with her family members, at about 12-15 a.m. (night)
Muhammad Asif along with an unacquainted person after having entered the house forcibly abducted her but on the way on account of slipping as the rain had fallen she could not be abducted by the accused mentioned in the F.I.R.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is not nominated in the F.I.R.; that the delay appears to have been taken place about sixteen days in lodging the matter to the police without its perspicuity; that in the addendum statement no source has been given by the complainant and at the maximum it was an attempt to abduct, therefore, the circumstances available on the record prima facie constitute a case for the grant of bail in favour of the petitioner.
3. Learned DPP assisted by learned counsel for the complainant has opposed the bail application by submitting that indubitably the petitioner is not named in the F.I.R. But nothing has been brought on the record either before the Investigating Officer or before this court during the arguments that the petitioner has been spitefully involved on account of some malice or enmity. Learned counsel submits that the alleged victim has named the petitioner as a person who participated in the commission of crime and her sole statement is sufficient to connect him with the commission of crime, thus, the petitioner is not entitled to any discretionary relief.
4. Heard. Record perused.
5. The petitioner was not nominated in the F.I.R., despite the matter was reported to the police after sixteen days, according to prosecution's own case the alleged occurrence remained incomplete and the chastity of the victim was not shattered. The circumstances, available on the record prima facie make out a case of further inquiry in favour of the petitioner. Therefore, this petition is accepted and the petitioner is admitted to post-arrest bail subject to his furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs,100,000 (Rupees one lac) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court.