GHULAM QADIR vs STATE, etc.
The petitioner sought post-arrest bail in connection with FIR No. 376 registered at Police Station Kassowal, District Multan, for offences initially under Section 382 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, which were later substituted with Sections 379 and 411 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to bail given the evidentiary gaps and the nature of the alleged offences. The Court observed that there was an unexplained nine-month delay in lodging the FIR, casting doubt on the prosecution's case, and noted that the allegation of abetment lacked independent corroboration. Furthermore, the Court held that the offences under Sections 379 and 411 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 do not fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. Given that the investigation was complete, the trial had not commenced, and the petitioner had no prior criminal record, the Court granted bail, establishing that where a case requires further inquiry and the offences are non-prohibitory, bail should generally be granted.
- Does an unexplained nine-month delay in lodging an FIR create sufficient doubt to warrant the grant of bail?
- Are offences under Sections 379 and 411 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 covered by the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Should bail be granted when the investigation is complete 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 379/411, 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 petitioner 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.