SHAHID vs The STATE and another
This matter comes before the Lahore High Court through a petition filed under Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, whereby the petitioner sought post-arrest bail in case FIR No. 148/16 registered under Sections 324, 337F(vi), 337F(iv), 34, and 109 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 at Police Station Rurala Road, District Faisalabad. The core legal question concerns whether the petitioner makes out a case for further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, given the delay in the FIR, the nature of the firearm injury attributed to him, and the non-applicability of the prohibitory clause to certain charged offences. The court held that the petitioner is entitled to post-arrest bail as his case falls within the ambit of further inquiry under subsection (2) of Section 497. The key principle laid down is that delay in lodging the FIR without plausible explanation, coupled with offences falling outside the prohibitory clause and completion of investigation with no progress in trial, warrants the grant of bail.
- Does an unexplained delay in the registration of an FIR make a case one of further inquiry for the purpose of bail?
- Whether offences not falling within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 justify the grant of post-arrest bail?
- Can an accused be kept in jail for an indefinite period when the trial has not made fruitful progress?
- Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 497(2), Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 324, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 337F(vi), Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 337F(iv), Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 34, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 109, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
ABDUL SAMI KHAN, J.---Through this petition under section 497, Cr.P.C. the petitioner has sought bail after arrest in case FIR No.148/16 dated 29.03.2016 under sections 324, 337F(vi), 337F(iv), 34, 109, P.P.C., Police Station Rurala Road, District Faisalabad.
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. It has been noticed that although the petitioner is named in FIR, yet the fact remains that there is one day's delay in registration of FIR which has not been explained by the complainant which prima facie shows that the FIR has been got recorded after due deliberation and consultation. The role assigned to the petitioner in the alleged occurrence is that he caused a firearm injury on the back of right leg and admittedly he has not repeated the fire, therefore, the question as to whether provisions of offence under shall be determined by the learned trial court after recording evidence.
So far as rest of the offences i.e. 337F(iv) and 337F(vi), P.P.C. are concerned, the same do not fall within the prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C. It is also settled law that maximum punishment is not to be considered while deciding the bail application and the sentence likely to be imposed is to be taken into consideration. Admittedly the petitioner is previous non-convict and never involved in any other case of such like nature. The investigation of the case is complete and the petitioner is no more required for further investigation. He was arrested in connection with this case on 28.06.2016, but his trial has not seen any fruitful progress as yet. Nobody can be kept in jail for an indefinite period.
3. For what has been discussed above, the case of the petitioner becomes one of further inquiry covered by subsection (2) of section 497, Cr.P.C. This petition 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. The observations made above are tentative in nature and are strictly confined to the decision of this bail petition only.
Cited by 1 case
- Dado Adam son of Muhammad Qasim Abbasi vs The State 2021 SHC 798