UMAR SIDDIQUE vs STATE and another
This matter concerns a petition for post-arrest bail filed by the petitioner, Dilawar, in a case involving allegations of lurking house-breaking and theft under Sections 380, 457, and 411 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to bail given the circumstances of his arrest and the evidence presented. The Court observed that the FIR was registered with an unexplained delay of over one month. Crucially, the Court found evidence of mala fides, noting that the petitioner had been recovered from illegal police custody by a bailiff acting under Section 491 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 just moments before his formal arrest in the present case. Holding that the petitioner's case required further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 and that his continued incarceration served no purpose, the Court granted bail. The key principle laid down is that where the circumstances of an arrest suggest mala fides and the prosecution's case requires further probe, the accused is entitled to the concession of bail.
- Does an unexplained delay in the registration of an FIR constitute grounds for further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Can evidence of illegal police confinement prior to a formal arrest support a finding of mala fides in a bail application?
- Is an accused entitled to bail when the prosecution's case requires further investigation and the accused has been incarcerated without trial progress?
- Section 380, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 457, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 411, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 491, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
Though this petition under Section 497, Cr.P.C., petitioner Dilawar has sought post arrest bail in case FIR No, 464 dated 02.12.2017, in respect of offences sunder Sections 380, 457 & 411, PPC, registered at Police Station, City Chichawatni, District Sahiwal.
2. The allegation against the petitioner, as contained in the crime report, is that in the intervening night of 31.10.2017 & 01.11.2017, the petitioner and his co-accused alongwith two unknown accused persons had committed lurking house-breaking by night and took away cash of Rs, 1,99,500/- and five plugs from the shop of the complainant. Hence, this case was registered.
3. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Deputy Prosecutor General appearing for the State and have perused the record.
4. The alleged occurrence had taken place on 31.10.2017 which was reported to the police on 2.12.2017 with the delay of more than one month and no plausible explanation could be brought on record for such a delay. Although the petitioner is named in the crime report yet the same itself shows that no source of complainant's information regarding involvement of the petitioner in the alleged occurrence has been disclosed. The record goes to evince that Mst. Parveen Akhtar, mother of the petitioner had filed a petition under Section 491, Cr.P.C. before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Chichawatni for the recovery of the petitioner from the illegal and unlawful confinement of Station House Officer, City Chichawatni through the Bailiff who recovered the petitioner on 02.12.2017 and on his arrival in the police station, his arrest was shown a few moments after the registration of the instant case which itself shows malafide on the part of the police as well as the complainant for false implication of the petitioner in this case. During investigation, the recovery of five plugs and Rs, 14,500/- has been shown to be effected from the petitioner but its veracity shall be determined after recording evidence by the learned trial Court. In the given circumstances, case of the petitioner requires further probe and inquiry into his guilt under sub- section (2) of Section 497, Cr.P.C. The petitioner is behind the bars since his arrest i,e, 02.12.2017 without any substantial progress in the trial. The challan has already been submitted and at this juncture, physical custody of the petitioner is not required to the investigating agency any more for the purpose of investigation and, thus, further incarceration of the petitioner for an indefinite period would serve no useful purpose for the prosecution.
5. In view of above, the petition in hand is allowed and the petitioner is admitted to bail subject to his furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs, 1,00,000/-(rupees one hundred thousand) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court.