MUHAMMAD ASHRAF Versus State
This matter arises from a criminal petition seeking post-arrest bail in respect of an F.I.R. registered under section 406 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, concerning allegations of criminal breach of trust regarding a motor vehicle. The core legal question revolves around whether the petitioner is entitled to post-arrest bail in view of an unexplained two-month delay in lodging the F.I.R., the applicability of the offense alleged, and the rule of consistency vis-a-vis a co-accused who was already granted bail. The Lahore High Court allowed the petition and admitted the petitioner to post-arrest bail. The court laid down the principle that an unexplained and considerable delay in lodging the F.I.R. casts serious doubt on the prosecution's case, and that where a co-accused facing similar allegations has already been enlarged on bail, the rule of consistency warrants the grant of bail to the remaining accused, particularly when the penal provision invoked appears prima facie inapplicable based on the record.
- Does an unexplained delay of two months in lodging an F.I.R. create doubt regarding the prosecution's case for the purpose of bail?
- Whether the rule of consistency applies when a co-accused facing similar allegations has already been granted bail by the trial court?
- Is post-arrest bail to be granted when direct evidence connecting the accused to the alleged offense under section 406 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 is lacking?
- Section 406, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
KHURSHID ANWAR BHINDER, J .---Petitioner seeks post-arrest bail in case F.I.R. No.800, dated 28-9-2007, registered under section 406, P.P.C. at Police Station Township, Lahore.
2. Precise allegations against petitioner are that on 3-8-2007 petitioner and Salamat came to the complainant and request him to hand over his vehicle to them as the petitioner has to take his ailing father to the hospital whereafter he never returned the said vehicle to the complainant.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that this is a false and fabricated case against the petitioner. The entire story narrated in the F.I.R. is absolutely baseless and no such occurrence has ever taken place. Petitioner has been implicated in this case at the instance of Idrees Additional S.H.O. Police Station Township, Lahore due to the enmity with him. There is a delay of two months in lodging the F.I.R. He further submits that the complainant in order to get his instalments waived from the Bank got the F.I.R. registered against the petitioner as the said car was on lease by the Bank and the allegations levelled against the petitioner are baseless and the said car is still in the possession of the complainant. He also submits that co-accused of the petitioner, namely, Zahir Shah, who was involved in the supplementary statement in this case has already been granted bail by the learned trial Court having similar allegations, therefore, rule of consistency demands that the petitioner be also released on bail as the allegations against both the accused persons are the same.
4. Learned DPG while opposing the bail application submits that the petitioner has been held guilty in the police investigation and further that the petitioner had stated before the police that after procuring the car from the complainant he had subsequently sold it to Zahir Shah in the tribal area.
5. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned DPG and have also perused the record. There is no denying the fact that there is an unexplained delay of two months in lodging the F.I.R. which casts doubt in one's mind and the possibility of deliberations cannot be ruled, out. Had the occurrence genuinely taken place then there was no reason for the complainant to wait for two months and then to lodge the F.I.R. because the petitioner had borrowed the car only to drop his father to the hospital and did not return the car for two months, seems implausible for the reason that the complaint should have been immediately lodged to the police for the recovery of his vehicle but he did not do so. This fact does not appeal to one's mind. The co-accused of the petitioner, against whom the allegation is that the petitioner had sold the vehicle to him, is equally liable to be tried under section 406, P.P.C., has already been granted bail by the learned trial Court. As per the facts and circumstances of the case section 406, P.P.C. is not attracted because there is no direct evidence to this effect against the petitioner which could connect him with the commission of the said offence. Moreover, rule of consistency also demands that the petitioner should also be granted bail as his co-accused has been granted bail by the learned trial Court.
6. For the afore-referred reasons, I allow this petition and admit the petitioner to bail subject to his furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs.50,000 with two sureties in the like amount each to the satisfaction of the trial Court/Illaqa Magistrate.
H.B.T./M-83/L Bail granted.