GHULAM QADIR vs STATE and another
The petitioner sought post-arrest bail in case FIR No. 376 registered at Police Station Kassowal, District Multan, initially under Section 382 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, where offences under Sections 379 and 411 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 were later added and Section 382 was deleted. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to post-arrest bail considering the delay in lodging the FIR, the nature of the substituted offences, and the completion of the investigation. The Lahore High Court held that the nine-month unexplained delay in lodging the FIR cast doubt on the prosecution's case, the added offences did not fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, and keeping the petitioner in custody indefinitely served no useful purpose. The Court laid down the principle that where offences fall outside the prohibitory clause and the case requires further inquiry under Section 497, post-arrest bail should be granted.
- Does an unexplained delay of nine months in lodging the FIR cast sufficient doubt to warrant post-arrest bail?
- Whether offences under Sections 379 and 411 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Can bail be granted when the investigation is complete, challan has been submitted, and the trial has not yet commenced?
- Section 382, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 379, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 411, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
' Ghulam Qadir s/o Mahmand petitioner seeks after arrest bail in case FIR No, 376 dated 18.9.2014 for offences under Sections 382, PPC (later on offence under Section 382, PPC deleted and offences under Sections 379/41 1, PPC were added) registered at P .S,. Kassowal, District Multan.
2. Briefly the prosecution story as unfolded in the FIR is that the assailants forcibly took the cattle belonging to the complainant in the night between 26/27th of December , 2013.
3. I have heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties.
4. There is a delay of about nine months in lodging of the FIR which has not been explained which has created doubt on the prosecution story . The allegation of abatement against the petitione r is not supported by any other independent evidence. The offence under Section 382, PPC stands deleted during the course of investigation whereas the offences under Sections 379/411, PPC has been added which do not fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497, Cr.P.C. The petitioner is behind the bars since his arrest. Investigation against the petitioner is complete. Challan has been submitted before the learned trial Court where reportedly the trial has not commenced so far. He is stated to be non convict and there is no 'record against him. No useful purpose would be served by keeping the petitioner behind the bars for an indefinite period.
5. For the reasons recorded above, the matter to the extent of the petitioner becomes one of further inquiry .
Resultantly , this petition is allowed and the petitioner is admitted to post arrest bail subject to his furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs, 2,00,000/-(Rupees two lac only) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court. The observations made in this order are tentative in nature.