MUSHTAQ AHMAD and 3 otherss vs NAZAR MUHAMMAD and anothers
This matter arises from a petition for pre-arrest bail filed by the petitioners in a private complaint under Section 364 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, following an earlier FIR under Section 363 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 in which the police found the petitioners innocent and placed them in Column No. 2 of the challan. The core legal question concerns whether the petitioners are entitled to pre-arrest bail when the complainant delayed reporting the matter to the police by over four years without explanation and the police exonerated them during investigation. The Lahore High Court held that the unexplained delay of four years in reporting the crime, combined with the police report finding the petitioners innocent and placing them in Column No. 2, constitutes circumstances rendering the case one of further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The court established the principle that such factors warrant the confirmation of pre-arrest bail as the case falls within the purview of further inquiry.
- Whether an unexplained delay of over four years in reporting a crime to the police makes a case one of further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Does the exoneration of accused persons by the police during investigation and their placement in Column No. 2 of the challan justify the grant of pre-arrest bail?
- Are accused persons entitled to pre-arrest bail when a private complaint is filed after police investigation found them not involved in the occurrence?
- Section 364, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 363, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 200, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 202, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 497(2), Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
' SHAHID HAMEED DAR, J.---Mushtaq Ahmad, Muhammad ,Hassan, Muhammad Hussain son of Mushtaq Ahmad and Muhammad Hussain son of Inayat Ullah (petitioners) seek bail before arrest in a private complaint-case, filed, by Nazar Muhammad (complainant) for an offence under section 364, P.P.C., being aggrieved of the investigation conducted by the police in respect of case F.I.R. No, 282, dated 20-5-2011, under section 363, P.P.C., registered at Police Station Basirpur (Okara); all the petitioners were found not involved -in the occurrence' by the I.O. And vide case diary dated 28-6-2011, they were placed in Column No, 2 of the challan. The complainant filed the aforesaid private complaint on 27-9-2011 wherein, after necessary proceedings under sections 200, 202 Cr.P.C., the learned trial court summoned the petitioners to stand trial. The petitioners moved an application for bail before arrest which was dismissed by learned trial court vide order dated 20-4- 2012, hence the instant petition.
2. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record, it is observed that the complainant had reported the crime to the police after lapse of more than four years and did not offer any plausible explanation as to the period of taciturnity observed by him, since his son went missing. The police after extensive investigation reached the conclusion that the accused- petitioners had no concern with the disappearance of the son of the complainant and placed all of them, A being innocent, in Column No,2 of the challan. Even in his private complaint, the complainant did not adduce any evidence as to why he kept tight-lipped for such a long period of time as mentioned above. The exoneration of the petitioners during investigation, placement of their names in Column No,2 of the challan and reporting of the crime to the police after four years are the circumstances which render the case of the petitioners one of further inquiry falling within the purview of section 497(2), Cr.P.C. There is no cavil to the proposition that bail before arrest is an extra ordinary relief, the scope whereof is narrow and which can only be extended to a person who is either innocent or who has not committed a non-bailable offence. Nevertheless, the petitioners do fall in the above-said category. Therefore, I accept this application and confirm the ad interim pre-arrest bail granted to the petitioners vide order dated 26-4-2012 subject to furnishing fresh bail bonds in the sum of Rs,1,00,000 each with one surety each in the like amount to the satisfaction of learned trial court.