MANZOOR AHMED Versus THE STATE
This application sought pre-arrest bail under Sections 497/498, Cr.P.C., for the applicant charged under Section 17(3) of the Offences Against Property (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979, and Section 337-F(i) for an incident involving robbery and injuries. The applicant contended false implication due to tribal enmity, a 14-hour delay in the FIR, and unreliable identification. The State argued that the FIR delay was explained, medical evidence confirmed injuries, and there was no proof of mala fide. The Court, after considering arguments and record, found the delay in FIR reasonably explained and the complainant's injuries supported by evidence. It noted the applicant was a nominated accused with a specific role and found no record of previous enmity to substantiate claims of mala fide. Consequently, the Court dismissed the application, recalling the interim pre-arrest bail, holding that the applicant was not entitled to bail.
- Can pre-arrest bail be granted where the delay in lodging the FIR is reasonably explained?
- Does the presence of specific role attribution in the FIR weigh against granting pre-arrest bail?
- Is an unsubstantiated claim of tribal enmity or mala fide sufficient ground for pre-arrest bail?
- Can pre-arrest bail be refused when medical evidence supports the prosecution's account of injuries?
- Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 498, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 17(3), Offences Against Property (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979
ORDER
1. Through this application under sections 497/498, Cr.P.C. applicant Manzoor Ahmed son of Haji Ghulam Muhammad seeks pre arrest bail in Crime No.25 of 2002 of Police Station Jhallo wherein he has been charged for offence punishable under section 17(3), Offences Against Property (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979, 337-F(i)
2. According to the prosecution story, allegations against the present applicant are that in an incident, which occurred at 8-30 p.m., on 3-10-2002, applicant who was armed with double-barrel gun, robbed complainant with cash of Rs.10,000 from his side pocket, one golden finger ring, two N.I.Cs. and Seiko-V wrist-watch. This offence, according to the F.I.R., was committed by five persons and during the incident motorcycle of complainant was also robbed and several injuries were caused to him.
3. During investigation some accused have been apprehended. Robbed articles have been recovered by the police and case has been challaned before the trial Court.
4. Learned counsel for the applicant contends that due to tribal enmity applicant has been falsely implicated in the crime. The F.I.R. is delayed by 14 hours and the identification of applicant in the light of motorcycle is not reliable, thus his case needs further enquiry entitling him for bail. He further untended that the recovery of robbed articles has also been effected from other accused, therefore, interim pre-arrest bail allowed to him earlier may be confirmed.
5. Mr. Abdul labbar Khaskheli, the learned Advocate for the State, on the other hand, contended that delay of 14 hours in lodging of the F.I.R. has been duly explained, the medical certificate of the complainant shows six injuries on his person and confirms the incident. There is nothing except the oral word of the applicant about his enmity with the complainant, thus, at this stage there is no element of mala fide entitling the applicant for grant of pre-arrest bail.
6. I have carefully considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel and perused the case record.
7. The contentions of Mr. Abdul Jabbar Khaskheli about reasonable explanation of delay in lodging of F.I.R. and several injuries to the complainant are duly supported from the case record. The applicant is a nominated accused in the F.I.R. with specific role attributed to him and there is also nothing on record to show any previous enmity of complainant with the applicant to justify allegations of mala fide of the complainant in naming the present applicant in the commission of crime.
8. For the foregoing reasons, applicant is not entitled for grant of bail. This application is accordingly dismissed. Order off interim pre-arrest bail passed on 28-11-2002 is hereby recalled.
9. N.H.Q./M-431/K Pre-arrest bail refused.