MUHAMMAD NAVEED ASLAM alias NAVEED AHMED vs STATE and another
This matter arises from a petition for anticipatory bail filed by Muhammad Naveed Aslam alias Naveed Ahmed in connection with FIR No. 94 dated 14.07.2016, registered under Sections 376 and 511 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 at Police Station Khairpur Sadar, District Muzaffargarh, on allegations of an attempt to commit rape. The core legal question is whether the petitioner is entitled to confirmation of pre-arrest bail in light of delayed reporting, lack of specific occurrence dates, previous enmity, and no requirement for recovery. The Lahore High Court accepted the petition and confirmed the anticipatory bail, holding that unexplained delay in lodging the FIR, absence of specific dates, previous enmity creating a possibility of false implication, and the absence of any recovery render the petitioner a fit case for the relief of bail. The key principle laid down is that malafide, unexplained delay, and previous enmity pointing towards potential false implication warrant the confirmation of pre-arrest bail.
- Whether unexplained delay in lodging the FIR justifies the grant of pre-arrest bail?
- Does the existence of previous enmity between the parties make false implication a ground for bail?
- Is pre-arrest bail confirmable when no recovery is to be made from the accused?
- Section 376, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 511, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
' Muhammad Naveed Aslam alias Naveed Ahmed, petitioner seeks anticipatory bail in case FIR No, 94 dated 14.07.2016, registered under Sections 376/511, PPC with Police Station Khairpur Sadar District Muzaffargarh having allegation that he attempted to commit rape with the complainant.
2. After having heard the learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record it is found that FIR has been lodged with the delay of two weeks, even no date of occurrence is mentioned in the FIR, for which no plausible explanation has been given by the complainant. Instant FIR was registered on the statement of the victim but charge of rape against petitioner is required to be determined by the learned trial Court seized with the trial. Nothing is required to be recovered from the petitioner. Moreover, record shows previous enmity existed between parties, so false implication of the petitioner in this case cannot be ruled out, thus he is found entitled for relief of bail.
3. In view of the above facts and circumstances, the petition in hand is accepted and anticipatory bail already granted to the petitioner vide order dated 31.08.2016 is confirmed, subject to his furnishing fresh bail bonds in the sum of Rs, 50,000/- with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of learned trial Court.