MUHAMMAD AKRAM Versus State
This is a post-arrest bail application filed by the petitioner in connection with F.I.R. No. 409 of 2004, registered for offences under sections 420 and 406 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to the concession of bail given the circumstances of the case, including the delay in the F.I.R., the nature of the offences, and the lack of recovery. The Court held that the petitioner is entitled to bail, observing that there was an unexplained twelve-day delay in lodging the F.I.R. and that the petitioner was implicated via a supplementary statement recorded fourteen months after the occurrence. Furthermore, the Court noted that no recovery was made during the petitioner's physical remand, and the offences charged do not fall within the prohibitory clause of section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The key principle laid down is that where there is no sufficient evidence to connect the accused with the offence and the case falls within the scope of further inquiry, bail should be granted to avoid punitive detention before trial.
- Does a case fall within the scope of further inquiry under section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 when there is no sufficient evidence to connect the accused to the offence?
- Is bail appropriate when the offences charged do not fall within the prohibitory clause of section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Can an unexplained delay in lodging an F.I.R. and a late supplementary statement constitute grounds for granting bail?
- Section 420, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 406, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 497(2), Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
TARIQ SHAMIM, J.--- The petitioner seeks bail after arrest in case F.I.R. No.409 of 2004, dated 18-12-2004 for offences under sections 420/406, P.P.C., registered at Police Station Qureshi, District Muzaffargarh.
2. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner is alleged to have taken car of the complainant which he subsequently sold to some other person fraudulently.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner was neither named in the F.I.R. nor any specific. role has been attributed to him; that there was a delay of twelve days in lodging of F.I.R. which itself creates doubt in the prosecution story; that the petitioner was involved by the complainant through supplementary statement which was recorded after lapse of fourteen months of the occurrence that although the petitioner was on physical remand with the police but no recovery has been effected from him; that the offences mentioned in the F.I.R. are not hit by the prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C. and that the petitioner was behind the bars for the last more than five months. Hence, the petitioner was entitled to the concession, of bail.
4. Learned State counsel has vehemently opposed the grant of bail to the petitioner.
5. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned counsel for the State and perused the record. There is a delay of twelve days in lodging of the F.I.R. which has not been explained and false involvement of the petitioner on account thereof cannot be ruled out. The petitioner has been involved in the case by the complainant through supplementary statement made by him after lapse of fourteen months. The petitioner was on physical remand with the police, however, no recovery was effected from him. The provisions of sections 420 and 406, P.P.C. prima facie are not attracted to the case of the petitioner. In any case the maximum sentence in the aforementioned sections is seven years which is not hit by the prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C. Further, the petitioner was arrested on the 23rd of January, 2006 and he is behind the bars for the last six months without there being any progress in the trial. The petitioner is no more required by the police as the challan has been submitted. Hence, keeping the petitioner behind the bars would amount to punishing him without trial. A tentative assessment of the evidence on record reveals that there is no enough evidence to connect the petitioner with the commission of the offences alleged against him. The case of the petitioner squarely falls within section 497(2), Cr.P.C., being one of further inquiry.
6. Resultantly, this petition is accepted and the petitioner is allowed bail subject to his furnishing bail bond in the sum of Rs.1,00,000 (rupees one lac) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court.
H.B.T./M-425/L Bail granted.