Muhammad Yousif Sodho vs The State
This criminal bail application arises from a criminal case registered against the applicant, Muhammad Yousif Sodho, for allegedly issuing a fake appointment order for a ministerial post in the Local Government in exchange for payment. The applicant sought post-arrest bail under Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 after being refused by the trial court. The core legal question was whether the applicant was entitled to post-arrest bail on the ground of further inquiry, considering the delay in lodging the FIR and the non-applicability of the prohibitory clause. The Sindh High Court held that the applicant was entitled to bail because there was an unexplained six-year delay in lodging the FIR, the offence did not fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, and the applicant had already been in custody for eight months. The court laid down the principle that an unexplained, inordinate delay in lodging an FIR, combined with the non-applicability of the prohibitory clause and a significant period of incarceration, makes a case one of further inquiry warranting the grant of post-arrest bail.
- Is an unexplained delay of six years in lodging an FIR a ground for granting post-arrest bail?
- Does an offence that falls outside the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 entitle the accused to bail on the ground of further inquiry?
- Can an accused person be granted post-arrest bail after enduring several months of incarceration when the case requires further inquiry into their guilt?
- Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 497(2), Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
IRSHAD ALI SHAH, J: - It is alleged that the applicant with rest of the culprit issued a fake appointment order in favour of one Asghar Shah for his appointment against the ministerial post in Local Government against payment, same was found to be fake for that the present case was registered.
2. The applicant on having been refused post arrest bail by learned Special Judge Anti-Corruption (Provincial)
Hyderabad has sought for the same from this court by way of instant bail application u/S 497 Cr .P.C.
3. It is contended by learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant being innocent has been involved in this case falsely by the complainant, there is delay of about six years in lodgment of FIR, the offence is not falling within prohibitory clause of Section 497 Cr.P.C. and the applicant has nothing to do with issuance of fake appointment order . By contending so, he sought for post arrest bail for the applicant on point of further inquiry .
Learned A.P.G. for the State has opposed to the grant of pre-arrest bail to the applicant by contending that he has committed the offence which is falling within exceptional clause.
I have considered the above arguments and perused the record.
The appointments in public sector are to be made after due advertisement of the post. In the instant matter no post was advertised. In that situation the appointment of Asghar Shah against ministerial post other than merits against payment by the applicant or someone else is appearing to be significant. Be that as it may, the FIR of the incident has been lodged with a delay of about six years, it has not been explained plausibly as such same could not be overlooked. The offence is not falling within prohibitory clause of Section 497(2) Cr.P.C. The applicant is in custody since eight months. In that situation it is rightly being contended by learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant is entitled to grant of post arrest bail on point of further inquiry.
In view of above, the applicant is admitted to post arrest bail subject to his furnishing surety in the sum of Rs.1,00,000/- and PR bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of learned trial court.
The instant bail application is disposed of in above terms.