Huzoor Bux vs The State
This matter concerns a post-arrest bail application filed under Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 by the applicant, who is accused of murder by drowning the deceased in a tube well. The core legal question was whether the applicant was entitled to bail based on the principles of further inquiry and the rule of consistency, given the circumstances of the case. The court observed that the FIR was lodged with an unexplained delay of six days, the incident appeared to be unseen, and eyewitnesses were introduced only through subsequent statements. Furthermore, the court noted that the DNA report was negative and that co-accused persons had already been granted bail by the trial court. Holding that the applicant's case warranted further inquiry, the court granted post-arrest bail. The key principle laid down is that where there is significant delay in lodging an FIR, the introduction of eyewitnesses via subsequent statements, and negative forensic evidence, the case for bail on the ground of further inquiry is established, particularly when co-accused have already been granted relief.
- Does a significant delay in lodging an FIR constitute grounds for further inquiry in a bail application?
- Can the introduction of eyewitnesses through subsequent statements after an FIR is lodged weaken the prosecution's case for the purpose of bail?
- Does the principle of consistency apply when co-accused persons have already been granted bail by the trial court?
- Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
Irshad Ali Shah J:- It is alleged that the applicant with rest of the culprits in furtherance of their common intention committed murder of Nadeem by drowning him in water pond of tube well, for that the present case was registered
2. The applicant on having been refused post-arrest bail by learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge/MCTC Matiari, has sought for the same from this court by making instant application under section 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; the F.I.R has been lodged with delay of about six days; the incident was unseen one; the alleged eye witnesses to the incident have been introduced subsequently by the complainant; the actual cause of death of the deceased could not be asserted; DNA report is negative and co-accused Hidayatullah and Allah Jurio have already been admitted to post arrest bail by learned Trial Court. By contending so, he sought for post-arrest bail for the applicant on point of further inquiry and consistency .
4. Learned A.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 his case is different to those of the accused, who have already been admitted to bail by learned Trial Court.
5. I have considered the above arguments and perused the record.
6. The FIR of the incident has been lodged with delay of about six days; such delay could not be overlooked. As per F.I.R, apparently the incident was unseen one. Subsequent to F.I.R by way of making further statement, the complainant introduced PWs Ghulam Qadir and Mian Bux as eye witnesses to the alleged incident, which appears to be significant. No cause of death of the deceased could be asserted. The DNA report has not matched with the applicant, it is in negative. Co-accused Hidayatullah and Allah Jurio have already been admitted to bail. In that situation, it is rightly being contended by learned counsel for the applicant that a case for grant of post-arrest bail in favour of the applicant on point of further inquiry is made out.
7. In view of above, the applicant is admitted to bail subject to furnishing surety in sum of Rs.100,000/- and P.R bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of learned Trial Court.
8. The instant bail application is disposed of accordingly .