Muhammad Nawaz @ Karo vs State
This matter is a criminal petition for leave to appeal under Article 185(3) of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, assailing the Sindh High Court's order declining post-arrest bail to the petitioner in a case registered under Sections 395, 342, and 506-II of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for armed robbery, wrongful confinement, and criminal intimidation. The core legal questions involve the effect of an inordinate delay in lodging the First Information Report, the absence of incriminating recoveries during police remand, the applicability of Section 506-II of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, and whether the case falls within the scope of further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The Supreme Court converted the petition into an appeal, allowed it, and set aside the High Court's order, granting post-arrest bail to the petitioner. The court held that liberty is a precious right not to be curtailed on bald allegations, that an unexplained inordinate delay of over nine months in reporting the crime creates further inquiry into the petitioner's guilt, and that non-recovery of any incriminating material coupled with offenses outside the prohibitory clause makes the grant of bail the rule rather than the exception.
- Does an inordinate and unexplained delay in lodging the First Information Report entitle an accused to post-arrest bail on the ground of further inquiry?
- Whether the absence of any incriminating recovery from an accused during physical remand justifies the grant of bail under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- When is the provision of Section 506(ii) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 inapplicable in cases involving criminal intimidation?
- Does the curtailment of a person's liberty require exceptional grounds rather than bald allegations when the offense does not fall within the prohibitory clause?
- Article 185(3), Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan 1973
- Section 395, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 342, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 506-II, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 503, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 506(ii), Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 497(2), Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
Sayye d Muhammad Mazahar Ali Akbar Naqvi, J. Through the instant petition under Article 185(3) of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, the petitioner has assailed the order dated 05.09.2022 passed by the learned Single Judge of the learned High Court of Sindh, Circuit Court Hyderabad, with a prayer to grant post-arrest bail in case registered vide FIR No. 05/2022 dated 11.05.2022 under Sections 395/342/506-II, PPC at Police Station Thebath, District Jamshoro, in the interest of safe administration of criminal justice.
2. Briefly stated the allegation against the petitioner is that he along with co-accused while armed with fire-arm robbed Toyota Corolla car of the complainant along with cash amounting to Rs.
65000/-and a driving license.
3. At the very outset, it has been argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has been falsely roped in this case against the actual facts and circumstances. Contends that the crime report was lodged after an inordinate delay of more than nine months for which no plausible explanation has been given. Contends that during investigation, no incriminating material was recovered from the petitioner, which could connect him with the commission of the crime.
Contends that the learned High Court while declining bail to the petitioner has not followed the guidelines issued by this Court for the safe administration of criminal justice, therefore, the same may be set at naught and the petitioner may by released on bail.
4. On the other hand, learned Law Officer assisted by learned counsel for the complainant vehemently opposed the petition. It has been contended that although the crime report was registered with an inordinate delay of more than nine months but there was no mala fide on the part of the complainant. It has been contended that the complainant was himself trying to find the robbed property and when he came to know that it was the petitioner who robbed his car, he approached him but the petitioner kept him on false hopes, thereafter, he lodged the crime report.
5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties at some length and have perused the available record with their able assistance.
As per the contents of the crime report, on 26.07.2021 the petitioner along with co-accused while armed with fire-arms robbed Toyota Corolla car of the complainant along with Rs. 65000/- and a driving license. However, the formal crime report for the same was lodged on 11.05.2022 after a lapse of nine months and sixteen days. The only explanation given by the complainant is that he was himself trying to find the robbed property. When he got to know that it was the petitioner who has allegedly robbed his car, he approached him to return his property and on his refusal he lodged the crime report. We are afraid, this explanation cannot be accepted. The record is silent as to on which date, the complainant got the information and when did he approach the petitioner.
There is also nothing on record to indicate as to why the petitioner kept mum for such a long period of time and B did not even bother to inform the Police. We have been informed that no recovery has been affected from the petitioner despite of the fact that he remained with the police on physical remand for a considerable period of time. So far as 'criminal intimidation' is concerned, the same has been defined in Section 503, PPC. A bare perusal of this provision of law makes it clear that whenever an over act is materialized and ended into an overt act, the provision of Section 506(ii), PPC would not be applicable and the only provision which will remain in the field is the overt act, which is committed in consequence of criminal intimidation. The petitioner is behind the bars for the last more than five months. This Court has time and again held that liberty of a person is a precious right, which cannot be taken away unless there are exceptional grounds to do so. Merely on the basis of bald allegations, the liberty of a person cannot be curtailed. In these circumstances, the petitioner has made out a case for bail as his case squarely falls within the purview of Section 497(2), Cr.P.C. entitling for further inquiry into his guilt, which even otherwise does not fall within the prohibitory clause. Grant of bail in such like cases is a rule whereas refusal is mere an exception.
6. For what has been discussed above, we convert this petition into appeal, allow it and set aside the impugned order dated 05.09.2022. The petitioner is admitted to bail subject to his furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs. 100,000/-with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of learned Trial Court.