Majis Ali vs The State
This matter concerns a post-arrest bail application filed by the applicant, Majis Ali, who is accused of abduction and murder. The core legal question was whether the applicant was entitled to bail given the complainant's no-objection affidavit, the delay in lodging the FIR, and the principle of consistency regarding a co-accused who had already been granted bail. The Court held that the applicant was entitled to bail. The ratio of the decision rests on the fact that the police omitted the charge of abduction with intent to murder from the final challan, the complainant had compounded the offence, and a co-accused with a similar role had already been admitted to bail. Furthermore, the Court noted that the five-hour delay in lodging the FIR could not be overlooked and that there were no eyewitnesses to the actual commission of the death. Consequently, the Court established that where there is a delay in the FIR, a no-objection from the complainant, and consistency with the treatment of co-accused, a case for further enquiry is made out, warranting the grant of bail.
- Whether the principle of consistency applies when a co-accused with a similar role has already been granted bail?
- Does a complainant's no-objection affidavit constitute sufficient grounds for the grant of bail in a murder case?
- Can a delay in lodging an FIR be considered a ground for further enquiry in a bail application?
- Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 364, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
Irshad Ali Shah J. It is alleged that the applicant along with rest of the culprits abducted Mehmood Ali with intention to commit his murder after keeping complainant Ali Gohar and his witnesses under fear of death and then committed the death of above said abductee, for that he was booked accordingly .
2. The applicant on having been refused post arrest bail by learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge/MCTC, Shaheed Benazirabad has sought for the same from this court by way of 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 police and complainant by filing his affidavit has recorded no objection to grant of bail to the applicant and co-accused Junaid Iqbal has already been admitted to bail by this Court therefore, the applicant is entitled to his release on bail on point of consistency and further enquiry .
4. The complainant has recorded no objection to grant of bail to the applicant by contending that he has compounded the offence with him. However, learned A.P.G for the State has opposed to grant of bail to the applicant by contending that he has actively participated in commission of incident.
5. I have considered the above arguments and perused the record.
6. Section 364 PPC relating to abduction of the deceased with intention to commit his murder has been omitted by the police while submitting the final challan of the case. Admittedly , the complainant by filing his affidavit has recorded no objection to grant of bail to the applicant. Co-accused Junaid Iqbal with utmost similar role has already been admitted to bail by this Court. The FIR of the incident has been lodged with delay of about five hours, such delay could not be overlooked. None even otherwise, has seen the applicant committing the death of the deceased. In these circumstances, a case for grant of bail to the applicant on point of consistency and further enquiry obviously is made out.
7. In view of above, the applicant is admitted to bail subject to his furnishing surety in sum of Rs.200,000/- and PR bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of learned trial Court.
8. The instant bail application is disposed of accordingly .