Zeeshan and 5 others vs The State and another
This matter concerns a petition for post-arrest bail filed by six petitioners accused of abduction for ransom in a case registered under FIR No. 78 of 2022 at Police Station Ganjmandi, Rawalpindi. The core legal question was whether the petitioners were entitled to bail given the evidentiary gaps in the prosecution's case and the circumstances of their detention. The Court observed that the FIR was lodged with an unexplained delay, the petitioners were not nominated in the FIR, and their physical features were not described. Furthermore, the Court noted material discrepancies between the statements of the abductee recorded under sections 161 and 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. Holding that the case required further inquiry within the meaning of section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, the Court granted bail. The key principle laid down is that bail cannot be withheld as a form of punishment, and where investigation is complete and physical custody is no longer required, continued detention pending trial is unjustified, particularly when the prosecution's case lacks sufficient prima facie strength.
- Does an unexplained delay in lodging an FIR constitute grounds for further inquiry under section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Can bail be withheld as a form of punishment for an accused?
- Are material variances in the statements of an abductee sufficient to justify the grant of post-arrest bail?
- Section 365, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 365-A, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 109, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 7, Anti-Terrorism Act 1997
- Section 161, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 164, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 497(2), Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
The petitioners seek post-arrest bail in case registered vide FIR No.78 dated 11.02.2022, at Police Station Ganjmandi, Rawalpindi, for offences under sections 365, 365-A, 109, P.P.C. read with section 7 of Anti-Terrorism. Act.
2. Allegation against the petitioners is that of abduction for ransom.
3. Having heard the arguments addressed at the bar and after perusing the record, it was noticed that incident was reported with unexplained delay of more than two hours. The petitioners are not nominated in the crime report. Their features have also not been mentioned in the FIR. The statements of the abductee recorded under sections 161 and 164, Cr.P.C. are at variance regarding mode and manner of the occurrence. During the investigation recoveries stand effected from the petitioners and their physical custody was not required by the Investigating Agency. Every accused is entitled to fair and speedy trial and no bail can be withheld as punishment. The petitioners are behind the bars since arrest and their continuous detention for indefinite period would be unfair. All these considerations rendered the case against the petitioners one of through probe within the meaning of section 497(2), Cr.P.C.
4. For the foregoing reasons, this petition is allowed and the petitioners are admitted to post-arrest bail subject to their furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs.2,00,000/ - each with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of learned trial court/ duty judge.
Cited by 2 cases
- Shoukat Versus State 2026 MLD 905
- Allah Wadhayo Jagirani vs The State 2023 SHC 1154