Imtiaz @ Faqeera Jakhrani vs The State
The applicant sought post-arrest bail after being refused by the Additional Sessions Judge, Kashmore, in a case involving allegations of attempted theft and causing injuries to a complainant. The core legal question was whether the applicant was entitled to bail given the circumstances of the case, specifically regarding the delay in lodging the FIR, the nature of the evidence, and the severity of the injuries. The Court held that the applicant was entitled to bail, reasoning that the one-day delay in the FIR was unexplained, the identification of the applicant under a light bulb was weak evidence, no theft actually occurred, and the injuries sustained did not fall within the prohibitory clause of the relevant criminal procedure law. Furthermore, the absence of weapon recovery contributed to the conclusion that the applicant's guilt required further inquiry. Consequently, the Court admitted the applicant to post-arrest bail, emphasizing that the case against him was not sufficiently strong to warrant continued incarceration pending trial.
- Does an unexplained delay in lodging an FIR justify the grant of post-arrest bail?
- Is identification of an accused under artificial light considered weak evidence in bail proceedings?
- Does the absence of injuries falling within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 entitle an accused to bail?
- Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
IRSHAD ALI SHAH, J. It is alleged that the applicant with rest of the culprits, by committing into house of complainant attempting to commit theft of his Cow and on resistance caused lathi blows to PW Yaqoob, for that the present case was registered.
2. The applicant, on having been refused post-arrest bail by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kashmore, has sought for the same from this Court by way of instant bail application u/s.497 Cr .PC.
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 party in order to satisfy its previous dispute over Karap with him; the FIR has been lodged with delay of about one day; the identity of the applicant under the light of bulb is weak piece of evidence and the injuries sustained by PW Yaqoob are not falling within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 Cr.PC. By contending so, he sought for release of the applicant on bail as his case is calling for further inquiry . In support of his contention he relied upon cases of Shammon alias Samandar Vs. The State (2007 MLD 294) and Jamsher Mazari Vs. The State ( 2009 YLR 387 ).
4. Learned D.P.G for the State and learned counsel for the complainant have opposed to grant of post-arrest bail to the applicant by contending that the applicant has actively participated in commission of the incident.
5. I have considered the above arguments and perused the record.
6. The FIR of the incident has been lodged with delay of about one day and such delay having not been explained plausibly could not be overlooked. No incident of theft has taken place. The identi ty of the applicant under light of bulb is weak piece of evidence. The injuries sustained by the injured are not falling within prohibitory clause of section 497 Cr.PC. There is no recovery of lathi. In these circumstances, the guilt of the applicant obviously is calling for further inquiry .
7. In view of above, the applicant is admitted to post arrest bail subject to his furnishing solvent surety in the sum of Rs.50,000/- and P .R bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of learned trial Court.
8. The instant bail application is disposed of accordingly .