Muhammad Afzal vs The State and another
This matter concerns a petition for post-arrest bail filed by the petitioner, Muhammad Afzal, who was implicated in FIR No. 539/2015 registered under Sections 496-A, 376, and 337-J of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the petitioner, despite being named in the FIR, was entitled to the concession of bail given the evidentiary material available at the pre-trial stage. The Court held that the petitioner was entitled to bail, finding that the two-day delay in lodging the FIR remained unexplained, suggesting deliberation. Furthermore, the Court noted the absence of specific allegations against the petitioner regarding the abduction or the commission of zina, observing that the victim's statement under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 failed to implicate him, likely due to his relationship as the brother of the main accused. The Court established that the case fell under the category of further inquiry and affirmed the principle that the mere heinousness of an offense is not sufficient grounds to refuse bail if the accused is otherwise entitled to the concession.
- Does an unexplained delay in the registration of an FIR constitute grounds for further inquiry in a bail application?
- Can bail be refused solely on the basis of the heinous nature of the alleged offense?
- Is a petitioner entitled to bail when the victim's statement under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 does not specifically implicate them?
- Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 496-A, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 376, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 337-J, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 164, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
Through this petition under section 497 Cr.P.C. the petitioner has sought bail after arrest in case FIR No.539/2015 dated 05.08.2015 under Section 496-A PPC, later on added sections 376, 337-J PPC, Police Station Badamibagh, Lahore.
2. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record with their able assistance. This is bail after arrest and only tentative assessment is allowed at this stage. Although the petitioner is named in the FIR yet the fact remains that there is a delay of two days in registration of FIR, which has not been explained by the complainant, which prima facie shows that the FIR has been got lodged after due deliberation and consultation. The complainant has not leveled any specific allegation against the present petitioner in respect of abduction of his sister Mst.Atia Bibi or commission of zina with her. Similarly , the alleged abductee/victim in her statement under section 164 Cr.P.C. has also not leveled any such allegat ion against the present petitioner and it seem s that he has been involved in the instant case only because he is real brother of main accused namely Adnan. Admittedly , the petitioner is previous non- convict and never involved in any other case. He is behind the bars since 15.08.2015, investigation of the case to his extent is complete and he is no more required by the police for further investigation. It is settled law that mere heinousness of offence is no ground to refuse bail if otherwise an accused becomes entitled to this concession. No useful purpose would be served by keeping him behind the bars.
3. For what has been discussed above, the case of the petitioner becomes one of further inquiry covered by sub- section (2) of section 497 Cr.P.C. This petitio n is, therefore, allowed and the petitioner is granted bail after arrest subject to his furnishing bail bond in the sum of Rs.100,000/- (Rupees one hundred thousand only) with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned Trial Court.
4. However the observations made hereinabove are tentative in nature and are strictly confined to the decision of this bail petition only .