Nadir Ali and others vs The State
This criminal matter arose from an application under Section 498 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 seeking pre-arrest bail, following its dismissal by the 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Shaheed Benazirabad. The prosecution alleged that the applicants, forming an unlawful assembly, caused injuries with iron rods and lathies resulting in broken fingers and teeth. The applicants argued false implication arising from a dispute over a fish pond, an unexplained 16-day delay in lodging the FIR, and the existence of a counter version. The complainant raised no objection, whereas the State opposed the application due to specific roles assigned to the applicants in the FIR. The High Court observed that the unexplained 16-day delay could not be overlooked and the presence of a counter version necessitated a determination at trial regarding which party was the aggressor. Holding that the matter called for further inquiry and demonstrated mala fide, especially where the applicants had joined the trial, the Court confirmed the interim pre-arrest bail.
- Whether an unexplained delay of 16 days in lodging an FIR can justify the grant of pre-arrest bail on grounds of mala fide and further inquiry?
- Whether the existence of a counter version regarding an incident necessitates the confirmation of pre-arrest bail to determine which party was the aggressor at trial?
- Can pre-arrest bail be granted when the complainant records no objection and the accused has joined the trial?
- Section 498, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
Irshad Ali Shah, J. It is alleged that the applicants with rest of the culprits after having formed an unlawful assembly and in prosecution of their common object caused injuries to complaina nt Shabir Ahmed Khanzado and PWs Abdul Rehman and Sattar with iron rods and lathies, thereby three fingers and three teeth of PW Abdul Rehman were broken, for that the present case was registered against them.
2. The applicants on having been refused pre-arrest bail by learned 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Shaheed Benazirabad have sought for the same from this Court by way of instant bail application u/s 498 Cr .P.C.
3. It is contended by learned counsel for the applicants that the applicants being innocent have been involved in this case falsely by the complainant party in order to satisfy its grudge with them over possession of fish pond; the FIR has been lodged with delay of about 16 days and there is counter version of the incident. By contending so, he sought for pre-arrest bail for the applicants on point of further enquiry and malafide.
4. Learned counsel for the complainant has recorded no objection to grant of pre-arrest bail to the applicants.
However , learned A.P.G. for the State has recorded objection to grant of pre arrest bail to the applicants by contending that they are named in FIR with specific role.
5. I have considered the above arguments and perused the record.
6. The FIR of the incident has been lodged with delay of about 16 days; such delay having not been explained plausibly could not be overlooked. There is counter version of the incident. Which party is aggressor and which party is aggressed upon, it requires determination at trial. The parties are disputed over fish pond. The case has finally been challenged. The applicants have joined the trial. In these circumstanc es, case for grant of bail to the applicants on point of further inquiry and malafide obviously is made out.
7. In view of above, the interim pre-arrest bail already granted to the applicants is confirmed on same terms and conditions.