Ali Murad son of Kehar Katohar Versus The State
This matter arises from a criminal bail application filed by the applicant seeking post-arrest bail after it was refused by the Sessions Court in F.I.R. No. 01 of 2021 registered for offenses including robbery and dacoity. The core legal question is whether the applicant has made out a case for further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, given the delayed lodging of the F.I.R., lack of recovery, and absence of specific roles attributed in the initial report. The Sindh High Court held that the unexplained delay of 36 days in reporting, absence of recovery of the robbed property or vehicles, and delayed recording of witness statements warranted a tentative assessment favoring further inquiry. The court laid down the principle that while deciding bail, courts must evaluate the tentative assessment of the record, including delay, recovery, and nature of the charge, and where reasonable grounds exist pointing to further inquiry, the accused is entitled to post-arrest bail under the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898.
- Whether delay in lodging an FIR without plausible explanation constitutes a ground for further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Does the absence of recovery of robbed property entitle an accused to post-arrest bail?
- What factors must a court consider when deciding a post-arrest bail application under the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Section 392, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 395, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 506(2), Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 504, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 114, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 147, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 148, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 149, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 170, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 161, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 497(1), Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 497(2), Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
Adnan-ul-Karim Memon, J:- Basically , impugned herein is the order dated 04.03.2021 whereby post-arrest bail was refused to the applicant by the learn ed Sessions Judge, Jacobabad, in F.I.R No.01 of 2021, registered with Police Station Punhoo Bhatti, for offenses punishable under sections 392, 506(2), 504, 114, 147, 148 & 149 P.P.C.
However section 395 P.P.C has been inserted by the prosecution in the report under section 170 Cr.P.C. The applicant is now seeking his admission on post-arrest bail in the aforesaid crime.
2. The accusation against the applicant as outlined in the F.I.R is that on 15.12.2020, the complainant proceeded to sell, his Paddy crop i.e. Rice (airy-6) by loading the same in Tractor- Trolley i.e. Messy Ferguson Model 2019, however , he was interrupted, on the way to market, by the applicant and his acco mplices and snatched away his crop by force, thus committed an offense under section 392/395 PPC. The applicant was arrested by the police in the said F.I.R. He being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with his unjustified arrest preferred post-arrest bail before the learned Sessions Judge, Jacobabad by filing Criminal Bail Application No.147/2021, which was later on dismissed vide order dated 04.03.2021 on the premise that the applicant along with accomplices committed robbery/ dacoity , which offense falls within prohibition contained in Section 497(1) Cr.P.C. The applicant has now approached this Court for his admission on post-arrest bail.
3. Messrs Amanullah Luhur Baloch and Zafar Ali Malghani, learned counsel for the applicant, have mainly contended that there is a delay of 36 days in lodging of FIR without plausible explanation; that no specific role has been assigned to the applicant; that there is no independent eyewitness of the alleged crime; that sections 392/395 are not attracted in the present case; that no recovery has been effected from the applicant. They further argued that the punishment provided under section 392 PPC is a minimum of 03 years and a maximum of 10 years; therefore, the same also does not fall within the prohibitory clause of section 497(1) Cr.P.C. They prayed for allowing the instant bail application.
4. The complainant of this case did not put his appearance before this Court despite service of notice; and this is the reason, Mr. Muhammad Noonari, learned Deputy Prosecutor General, has been heard, who opposed the bail application on the premise that the applicant is nominated in the aforesaid crime. He prayed for the dismissal of the instant bail application.
5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record.
6. To proceed further on the subject, while deciding a bail application, only allegations made in the FIR, statements recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C., nature and gravity of the charge, other incriminating material against the accused, legal pleas raised by the accused, and relevant laws have to be considered. In this regard, I am fortified by the decision of the Honorable Supreme Court rendered in the case of Shahzad Ahmed Vs. The State (2010 SCMR 1221 ).
7. Tentative assessment of the record reflects the following position of the case:- The alleged offense was committed on 15.12.2020, whereas the F .I.R was lodged on 21.01.2021; after 36 days.
Prima facie, the applicant was arrested on 06.2.2021, and there is no recovery of alleged robbed property from the applicant.
Mashirnama of the place of W ardat was prepared on 22.01.2021; after 37 days of the alleged incident.
The statement of PWs have been recorded on 26.01.2021; after a delay of 37 days of the alleged incident.
Prima facie, the alleged incident of robbery is yet to be ascertained by the learned trial court after the recording of evidence.
The alleged T ractor -Trolley has also not been recovered and or placed on record.
The alleged blue color Jeep used in the crime as narrated by the complainant, has not been recovered.
8. In view of hereinabove, I am convinced that in the instant case there are sufficient grounds for further inquiry , and the case of the applicant-accused is covered under section 497(2) Cr . P.C.
9. For the above reasons, the applicant Ali Murad has made out a case for post-a rrest bail in FIR No. 01 of 2021, registered with Police Station Punhoo Bhatti, for offenses punishable under sections 392/395, 506(2),504, 114, 147, 148 & 149 P.P.C. Accordingly , the applicant is admitted to post arrest bail; he shall be released bail in the aforesaid crime subject to furnishing his bail bond in the sum of Rs.100,000/- (One Hundred Thousand Rupees ) and P .R Bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court.
10. Needless to mention here that, observations made in this order are tentative in nature, and shall not affect the merits of the case.