MUHAMMAD IMRAN, etc. vs STATE, etc.
This matter concerns a post-arrest bail application filed by Muhammad Imran and Muhammad Asif in case FIR No. 114/2014 under Sections 381-A and 411 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, registered at P.S. Sadder Kamalia, Toba Tek Singh. The legal questions before the Lahore High Court involved whether post-arrest bail should be granted where there was an unexplained eight-day delay in lodging the FIR, the petitioners were implicated solely via a supplementary statement, joint recovery was alleged, and a co-accused had already been admitted to bail. The High Court allowed the petition and granted post-arrest bail to the petitioners. The Court held that the offences did not fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, where grant of bail is the rule and refusal an exception. Furthermore, the evidentiary value of a supplementary statement and joint recovery must be determined at trial, rendering the case one of further inquiry under Section 497(2), Code of Criminal Procedure 1898.
- Does an unexplained delay of eight days in lodging an FIR support the grant of post-arrest bail?
- Whether the implication of accused persons solely through a supplementary statement warrants further inquiry under Section 497(2) Cr.P.C.?
- Is grant of bail a rule and refusal an exception in cases where the charged offences do not fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 Cr.P.C.?
- Section 381-A, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 411, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 497(2), Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
' Muhammad Imran and Muhammad Asif petitioners seek post arrest bail in case FIR No, 114/2014 dated 17.5.2014 for offences under Sections 381-A/411 PPC registered at P.S. Sadder Kamalia District Toba Tek Singh.
2. Briefly the prosecution story as unfolded in the FIR is that the complainant on the intervening night between 08/09-05-2014 parked his tractor on the farm of Malik Sarif and when he woke up in the morning, he found his tractor missing.
3. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
4. There is a delay of eight (08) days in lodging of the FIR which has not been explained. Allegedly the petitioners are not nominated in the FIR nor there is any direct evidence against them. They were involved in the present case on the basis of supplementary statement made by the complainant on 27.05.2014. The evidentiary value of such kind of supplementary statement shall be adjudged by the learned trial Court after recording of evidence. A joint recovery of stolen property has been shown to be effected on the pointation of petitioners and one Anser Abbas. Co-accused Anser Abbas has already been released on bail by the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge Kamalia vide order dated 05.07.2014. The same has not been assailed by the complainant at any forum. The offences with which the petitioners are charged do not fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497, Cr.P.C. Grant of bail in such kind of cases is a rule and its refusal is an exception.
Investigation qua the petitioners is complete and challan has been submitted before the trial Court where the trial has not been commenced so-far. They are stated to be non-convicts and no useful purpose would be served by keeping them behind the bars for an indefinite period.
5. In view of the above, the matter requires further inquiry into the guilt of the petitioners as contemplated under Section 497 (2), Cr.P.C. Resultantly this petition is allowed and the petitioners are admitted to post-arrest bail subject to their furnishing ball bonds in the sum of Rs,1,00,000/- (rupees on lac only) each with one surety each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court. The observations made above are tentative in nature.