WASIM RIAZ Versus THE STATE
This matter arises from a bail application filed by the accused, Wasim Riaz, seeking post-arrest bail in a case involving house trespass, dacoity, and robbery registered under an FIR at Ibrahim Haidri Police Station. The core legal question concerns whether the delay in lodging the FIR, coupled with questionable recovery and previous animosity, warrants the grant of bail. The Sindh High Court held that the case is fit for the grant of bail, considering the broad features including delayed lodging of the FIR, unsatisfactory explanation for the delay despite the alleged identification of the culprit, and the insignificant recovery of only a remote control without any other valuable stolen property. The key principle laid down is that where significant delay in reporting and doubtful minor recoveries characterize the prosecution case, further inquiry into the accused's guilt is made out, entitling them to post-arrest bail.
- Does an unexplained delay in lodging the FIR make a case fit for the grant of post-arrest bail?
- Whether the recovery of a low-value, common item without other stolen valuables constitutes sufficient ground to deny bail in a dacoity case?
ORDER
According to prosecution case as put in the F.I.R. Muhammad Bashir was sleeping in his house during night in between 29 and 30‑7‑2002. At about 4‑00 a.m. two persons equipped with T.T. pistol and Khanjar entered into the house after climbing over the wall. One of them was identified as Wasim Riaz son of Muhammad Siddique being neighbourer of the complainant. They took away the valuables including cash Rs.25,000 golden ornaments, one mobile phone and one remote control. The complainant lodged F. I. R. with the Ibrahim Haidri Police on 1‑8‑2002 at 3‑15 p.m. explaining the delay by saying that he had been searching privately.
2. During investigation Wasim Riaz was arrested on 5‑8‑2002. He is said to have produced remote control of Panasonic T.V. on 12‑8‑2002. One other person namely Abid was arrested but was released afterwards as the complainant did not confirm him to be the culprit in the identification parade.
3. The bail plea of the applicant failed before the learned trial Court, therefore., present application has been filed.
4. Applicant's learned Advocate has contended that the F.I.R. is delayed and the explanation advanced in respect thereof is not convincing. He further argued that the remote control allegedly produced by the applicant has been foisted upon him. According to him its cost is only Rs.100. to Rs.200 and is available in the market. Had the applicant produced the robbed articles some valuables must have been recovered if he was the culprit. It has also been argued that there had been altercation between the applicant and complainant Muhammad Bashir two days before the F.I.R.
5. Learned State Counsel concedes to the bail plea saying that the F.I.R. is delayed and the alleged recovery is not of much significance in the circumstances.
6. In view of the broad features specially the delay in the F.I.R. explanation that the complainant had been searching for privately despite identification of one of the culprits and recovery of only remote control without further clue about any other valuable articles, the case of applicant is fit for bail.
Bail granted. He shall be released on furnishing surer in the sum of Rs.50,000 with P.R. Bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court.
H.B.T./W‑1/K Bail granted.
Cited by 2 cases
- KHALIL vs THE STATE 2010 YLR 1486
- ABDUL QADIR alias BABOO vs THE STATE 2009 P Cr. L J 79