Pir Bux @ Peeru vs The State
This matter concerns an application for pre-arrest bail filed by the applicants, who were accused of attempting to commit sodomy against two prosecution witnesses. The applicants, having been denied pre-arrest bail by the trial court, approached the High Court under Section 498 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, contending that they were falsely implicated due to political rivalry and highlighting a seven-day delay in the registration of the FIR. The core legal question was whether the applicants were entitled to pre-arrest bail based on the grounds of malafide and the necessity for further inquiry. The Court held that the significant, unexplained delay in lodging the FIR, coupled with an additional day's delay in recording the statements of the prosecution witnesses under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, created reasonable doubt regarding the prosecution's case. Consequently, the Court confirmed the interim pre-arrest bail, establishing the principle that unexplained, substantial delays in criminal reporting and investigation, alongside allegations of political enmity, constitute valid grounds for granting pre-arrest bail on the basis of further inquiry.
- Does an unexplained seven-day delay in lodging an FIR constitute a ground for granting pre-arrest bail?
- Can allegations of political rivalry between parties justify the grant of pre-arrest bail?
- Is a delay in recording statements under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 a relevant factor in bail adjudication?
- Section 498, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 161, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
Irshad Ali Shah J. It is alleged that the applicants in furtherance of their common intention attempted to commit sodomy to PWs Husnain Mujtaba and Faraz Ali, for that the present case was registered
2. The applicant on having been refused pre-arrest bail by learned Additional Sessions Judge-II, Kotri have sought for the same from this Court by way of instant application under section 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 in order to satisfy with them their political rivalr y; the FIR has been lodged with delay of about (07) days. By contending so, he sought for pre-arrest bail for the applicant on point of further enquiry and malafide.
4. Learned Assistant Prosecutor General for the State who is assisted by the complainant has opposed to grant of pre-arrest bail to the applicants by contending that the of fence alleged against them is af fecting the society .
5. I have considered the above arguments and perused the record.
6. The FIR of the incident has been lodged with delay of about thirteen (07) days; such delay having not been explained plausibly could not be overlooked. As per FIR it is the case of mere attem pt to commit sodomy with PWs Husnain Mujtaba and Faraz Ali. The 161 Cr.P.C statements of the PWs even otherwise have been recorded with further delay of one day even to FIR, which appears to be significant. The parties are said to be having political rivalry with each other . In these circumstances, a case for grant of bail to the applicants on point of further inquiry and malafide 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.
8. The instant bail application is disposed of accordingly .