Sarfraz vs The State and another
This is a criminal petition filed under Section 498 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 wherein the petitioner Sarfraz sought pre-arrest bail in F.I.R. No. 289 of 2013 registered under Section 380 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 at Police Station Saddar Jaranwala, District Faisalabad. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to pre-arrest bail considering the delay in lodging the F.I.R., the absence of recoveries, and the fact that the offense did not fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The Lahore High Court accepted the petition and confirmed the pre-arrest bail, holding that since the offense carried a maximum punishment of seven years and did not fall within the prohibitory clause, the grant of bail was the rule and refusal the exception, especially in the presence of unexplained delay in registration of the F.I.R. and lack of incriminating recovery. The key principle laid down is that in offenses not falling within the prohibitory clause, bail should ordinarily be granted when the case involves further inquiry and lacks immediate incriminating evidence or recovery from the accused.
- Whether pre-arrest bail can be granted when an F.I.R. is lodged with an inordinate and unexplained delay?
- Does an offense under Section 380 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- What is the general rule regarding the grant of bail in offenses not falling within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Section 498, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 380, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 161, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
' MUHAMMAD YAWAR ALI, J. Through this petition filed under Section 498, Cr.P.C. The petitioner Sarfraz seeks pre-arrest bail in F.I.R. No, 289/2013, dated 14.6.2013 for offence under Section 380, PPC registered at Police Station, Saddar Jaranwala, District Faisalabad.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is innocent and has been falsely roped in this case by the complainant with male fide intention on account of a dispute which arose between the parties during the general elections; nothing has been recovered from the petitioner so as to connect him with the commission of offence; the petitioner has not been named in the F.I.R.; a co-accused lmran has been declared to be innocent during the investigation which has taken place; the petitioner is previous non-convict, no more required for further investigation of the case.
3. The learned. Deputy Prosecutor-General and the learned counsel for the complainant have opposed the petition by submitting that there is no male fide intention on the part of the complainant or any police official to have lodged a false and frivolous criminal case against the accused; `two prosecution witnesses namely Ali Sher and Allah Ditta while getting their statement recorded under. Section 161, Cr.P.C. On 14.6.2013 deposed in line with the contents of the F.I.R.; the recovery of stolen articles is yet to be effected; miscarriage of justice would be occasioned if pre- arrest bail is allowed to the petitioner at this stage. In all fairness the learned Deputy Prosecutor- General has pointed out that although the petitioner has joined the investigation there is no finding of the Investigating Officer that the petitioner is guilty or otherwise.
4. After hearing the arguments which have been advanced and going through the record, it has been observed that the F.I.R. Has been lodged with an inordinate delay for which no plausible explanation is forthcoming. The offence is stated to have taken place during the intervening night on 15/16.5.2013 whereas the F.I.R. Was lodged with a long delay on 14.6.2013. Admittedly, the occurrence was not witnessed by anyone and so far nothing has been recovered from the petitioner so as to connect him with the commission of offence. The learned Deputy Prosecutor- General has pointed out that although the petitioner has joined the investigation so for there is no finding of the Investigating Officer declaring him to be guilty. The petitioner has been charged with an offence which carries a maximum punishment of seven years' imprisonment and does not fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497, Cr.P.C., hence in cases not punishable with death, imprisonment for life or ten years' imprisonment grant of bail is a rule and refusal is an exception. It has strongly been asserted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the F.I.R. Has been lodged against the petitioner with mala fide intention and ulterior motives on account of an election dispute between the parties.
5. For what has been stated above, this petition is accepted and ad interim pre-arrest bail earlier allowed to the petitioner vide order dated 9.9.2013 stands confirmed subject to furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs, 50,000/- with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned Trial Court.