PERVEZ vs STATE and another
This criminal petition concerns a request for post-arrest bail in a case registered under Sections 458, 395, 397, and 412 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, involving allegations of house trespass, dacoity, and possession of stolen property. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to bail given the significant delay in the registration of the First Information Report (F.I.R.), the lack of identification of the recovered articles, and the petitioner's status as a first-time offender. The Court held that the petitioner was entitled to bail, noting the unexplained fourteen-day delay in reporting the incident, the failure of the complainant to identify the recovered items, and the fact that the petitioner had been incarcerated for over a year without the conclusion of the trial. The Court established the principle that an accused cannot be detained indefinitely pending trial, especially where the prosecution's evidence regarding the recovery of stolen property remains unverified by identification and where the accused has no prior criminal record.
- Does an unexplained delay in the registration of an F.I.R. constitute a valid ground for the grant of bail?
- Is the failure of a complainant to identify recovered articles a relevant factor in determining bail?
- Can an accused be denied bail solely on the basis of recovery of stolen property if the trial has been significantly delayed?
- Section 458, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 395, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 397, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 412, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
Through this petition the petitioner has sought post arrest bail in case F.I.R. No, 130 dated 24.3.2012 registered under Sections 458/ 395/397/412, P.P.C. at Police Station Qabola, Pakpattan.
2. Statedly the occurrence took place on 10.2.2012 at 6:00 p.m. and the matter was reported to the police on 24.3.2012 at 8:00 p.m. i,e, after fourteen days. In F.I.R. it was stated that the petitioner alongwith four nominated persons while armed with fire-arms entered the house of the complainant and on gun point took away his mobile phone, mobile phone of his wife and four wrist watches, Rs, 14,000/-, silver ornaments and gold rings.
The petitioner was arrested on 14.4.2012 and during investigation he got recovered gold rings, gold necklace and 'cash.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the case was registered after unexplained delay of fifteen days in which name, parentage and residence of the petitioner and other accused are duly mentioned and there is no reason why so many persons entered the house of the complainant although they were knew him; that it is not clearly mentioned that any necklace was taken away but same has been recovered from the petitioner; that the petitioner is behind the bars and is no more required to police for further investigation and as such the petitioner is entitled to bail.
4. On the other hand, the learned law officer submits that the petitioner is duly nominated in the F.I.R. and after arrest he got recovered stolen articles and as such he is not entitled to any exception.
5. I have heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the record. The F.I.R. was registered after delay of fourteen days and no reason for such delay is available on record. All the accused were known to the complainant and they were duly named as accused in the F.I.R. The petitioner was arrested on 11.4.2012 and since then he is behind the bars and trial has not been concluded. There is no previous record of the petitioner available on police file. Recovered articles were not identified by the complainant and eye-witness. It will be seen after recording of evident whether recovered articles were the same which were stolen at the relevant time. The petitioner has got no previous record. He is first offender. While considering that recovered articles were not identified by the complainant and the witnesses and also keeping in mind that the petitioner is behind the bars for the last more than a year and trial has not been concluded, I think that the petitioner has made out a case for bail. He cannot be detained in jail for indefinite period. Consequently, this petition is accepted and the petitioner is allowed bail subject to his furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs, 3,00,000/- with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court.