Rafaqat Ali vs The State and another
This petition for post-arrest bail arises from FIR No. 111/2015, involving charges under sections 324, 337 F(III), 337 F(I), and 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The petitioner sought bail after being incarcerated since September 2015, contending that the trial had not commenced and the investigation was complete. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to the concession of bail given the circumstances of the case and the delay in the FIR. The Lahore High Court held that the six-day delay in lodging the FIR, which remained unexplained, suggested deliberation and consultation. Furthermore, the Court noted that the petitioner was a previous non-convict, the investigation was complete, and the offence was triable by a Magistrate Section 30. Consequently, the Court granted bail, determining the case fell under the category of further inquiry. The key principle laid down is that mere heinousness of an offence is insufficient to refuse bail when an accused is otherwise entitled to it on merits, particularly when the investigation is complete and trial commencement is delayed.
- Does an unexplained delay in lodging an FIR constitute grounds for further inquiry in a bail application?
- Is the mere heinousness of an offence sufficient ground to refuse bail to an accused who is otherwise entitled to it?
- Can an accused be granted bail when the investigation is complete and the trial has not yet commenced?
- Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 324, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 337 F(III), Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 337 F(I), Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 34, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
Through this petition under section 497 Cr.P.C. the petitioner Rafaqat Ali has sought bail after arrest in case FIR No.111/2015 dated 11.04.2015 under sections 324, 337 F(III), 337 F(I), 34 PPC, registered at Police Station Sandal Bar, Faisalabad.
2. The arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties have been heard and the record of this case has also been perused with their able assistance. This is bail after arrest and deeper appreci ation is not allowed at this stage. It has been noticed that although the petitioner is named in FIR, yet the fact remains that there is a delay of six days in lodging of the FIR, which has not been explained by the complainant, which prima facie shows that the FIR has been lodged after due deliberation and consultation. The allegation against the petitioner is that he fired with his pistol30 bore which landed on left thigh of Riaz Ahmad brother of the complainant which injury was declared "Jurrah ghayr-jaifah-Mutlahimah" under section 337 F(III) PPC. The petitioner has not repeated the offence, thus the question regarding attraction of Section 324 PPC shall be determined by the learned trial Court after recording prosecution evidence.
Admittedly the petitioner was arrested in this case on 30.09.2015, since then he is in jail and the trial has not even commenced. Nobody can be kept in jail for an indefinite period. Admittedly the petitioner is previous non-convict and never involved in any other case of such like nature. The investigation of the case is compl ete and the petitioner is no more required for further investigation. The offence with which the petitioner is charged is triable by Magistrate Section 30 who is competent to pass sentence for seven years only. Mere heinousness of offence is no ground to refuse the concession of bail to an accused, who otherwise, becomes entitled for concession of bail on the merits of the case. 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 one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned Trial Court.
4. The observations made above are tentative in nature and are strictly confined to the decision of this bail petition only.