GHULAM HUSSAIN Versus State
This petition for post-arrest bail arises from F.I.R. No. 103 of 2003, registered under sections 324 and 452 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, involving allegations of criminal acts at Police Station Gellay Wal, District Lodhran. The petitioner sought bail on grounds of false implication, a ten-day delay in lodging the F.I.R., the absence of any attributed overt act or injury, and his advanced age as an octogenarian. The prosecution opposed the bail, citing the petitioner's presence in the F.I.R. and the allegation of a commanding 'Lalkara' (incitement). The Court observed that the inordinate delay in lodging the F.I.R. lacked a plausible explanation and noted that no specific injury was attributed to the petitioner. Determining that the petitioner's role required further inquiry and noting his advanced age, the Court held that the case fell within the scope of section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. Consequently, the Court granted post-arrest bail, ruling that continued judicial detention would serve no useful purpose.
- Does an inordinate delay in lodging an F.I.R. without a plausible explanation constitute grounds for further inquiry under section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Is a person entitled to bail when no specific overt act or injury is attributed to them in the F.I.R.?
- Can the advanced age of an accused be a relevant factor in determining entitlement to bail under the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Section 324, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 452, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 497(2), Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
Through this petition, the petitioner has sought for the relief of his post-arrest bail in a case F.I.R. No.103 of 2003 dated 10-6-2003 registered under sections 324/452, P.P.C. at Police Station Gellay Wal, District Lodhran on the grounds that he has been falsely implicated in this case; that there is ten days delay in lodging the F.I.R.; that no overt act has been attributed to the petitioner; that only Lalkara has been ascribed to him; that the petitioner s case is covered under subsection (2) of section 497, Cr.P.C. which needs further inquiry, therefore, he is entitled for the relief claimed for.
2. On the contrary, the learned counsel for the complainant assisted by the learned State Counsel has opposed the petition on the grounds that the petitioner is named in the F.I.R.; that delay in lodging the F.I.R. has already been explained in the F.I.R.; that commanding Lalkara has been attributed to the petitioner, that the offences complained are applicable against the petitioner and fall within prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C. therefore, he is not entitled for extraordinary concession of bail.
3. Heard both the parties. Record perused.
4. It evinces from the record that there is more than ten days inordinate delay in lodging the F.I.R. to which no plausible explanation is forthcoming on the record. It has also come on the record that no overt act has been attributed to the petitioner nor injury has been ascribed to him. As regards the contention of the learned counsel for the complainant that commanding Lalkara has been attributed to the petitioner at the time of commission of crime complained, it cannot be determined at this stage, it will be seen at the time of trial. The learned counsel for the petitioner during the course of his arguments has drawn my attention towards the fact that the petitioner is at the age of octo-generarian. His case is covered under the proviso of section 497, Cr.P.C.
5. As stated above since no injury has been attributed to the petitioner and only part of the petitioner as alleged in the F.I.R. is that he aimed with his weapon at the relevant time which was snatched. Keeping in view the part ascribed to the petitioner at the time of commission of crime complained, in my view, the case of the petitioner as well as also needs further inquiry into his guilt and falls under section 497(2), Cr.P.C.
6. In this view of above discussion, further detention of the petitioner in judicial lock-up will not serve any useful purpose, therefore, he is held entitled for concession of bail subject to furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs.30,000 (Rupees thirty thousand only) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court.
H.B.T./G-91/L Bail granted.
Cited by 1 case
- AJAMAEEN KHAN and 8 others vs THE STATE 2007 YLR 1817