SHAHRYAR Versus State
This post-arrest bail petition was filed before the Lahore High Court after being declined by the Additional Sessions Judge, Lahore, in a case registered under Section 392 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The prosecution alleged that the petitioner along with a co-accused committed armed robbery against the complainant's wife. The core question before the Court was whether the unexplained delay in lodging the FIR, police misconduct during remand, and delay in conducting the identification parade entitled the petitioner to post-arrest bail under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The High Court observed that the FIR was lodged after an unexplained two-day delay despite police arriving immediately at the scene. Furthermore, after judicial remand was ordered, the police illegally detained the petitioner in lock-up for six days, and the identification parade was delayed by one and a half months. Concluding that the investigation was complete and the case required further inquiry, the High Court granted post-arrest bail to the petitioner.
- Whether an unexplained delay in lodging an FIR creates sufficient doubt to bring a robbery case within the scope of further inquiry under Section 497(2), Cr.P.C.?
- Whether illegal retention of an accused in police custody despite judicial remand orders impairs the credibility of subsequent identification proceedings?
- Whether an inordinate delay of one and a half months in conducting an identification parade entitles an accused to post-arrest bail?
- Section 392, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 173, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 497(2), Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
MUHAMMAD WAHEED KHAN, J. ---Having failed to get the post arrest bail in case FIR No.596 dated 11.05.2018, registered under section 392, P.P.C. at Police Station Satukatla, Lahore from the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Lahore vide order dated 15.10.2018 the petitioner seeks the same relief through this petition.
2. The brief allegation against the present petitioner namely, Shahryar is that he along with his co-accused committed robbery on gun point with the complainant's wife.
3. Heard. Record perused.
4. The perusal of record shows that the alleged occurrence took place on 09.05.2018 at 08:15 p.m. whereas the matter was reported to the police on 11.05.2018 at 06:15 p.m. with a delay of two days, the explanation of which has not been advanced by the complainant while lodging the FIR. The allegation against the present petitioner is that when he was stuck by the complainant with his car he succeeded to run away while leaving his motorcycle at the crime scene. The contents of crime report further depicts that soon after the occurrence, police reached at the spot and they have taken the said motorcycle into their possession but despite this fact the delay of two days in lodging the crime report creates a serious doubt regarding the veracity of the stance of the complainant.
5. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner strongly argued that after arrest of the petitioner i.e. on 15.06.2018 he was produced before the learned Judicial Magistrate Model Town, Lahore who ordered to send him on judicial remand for the purpose of identification parade but the accused was never sent to the jail rather the police kept him in the police lock up for about six days. Learned Judicial Magistrate issued Show Cause Notices to the delinquent police officials, and vide order dated 19.07.2018 the inquiry regarding the above said illegal act of the police officials was recommended to the CCPO, Lahore.
6. Another aspect of the case is that though the accused were arrested on 15.06.2018, the identification parade was conducted on 31.07.2018 with a delay of about one and a half months. This aspect of the case also speaks volumes on part of the police. Even otherwise, the accused is behind the bars since his arrest. The report under section 173, Cr.P.C. has already been submitted on 16.08.2018 and since then there is no progress in the trial. The investigation has already been completed and further incarceration of the petitioner behind the bars would not serve any beneficial purpose for the prosecution.
7. For what has been discussed above, prima facie, there are sufficient reasons to believe that the case of the petitioner, called further probe into his guilt within the scope of section 497(2), Cr.P.C. So, the instant petition is hereby allowed and the petitioner is admitted to post-arrest bail subject to his furnishing bail bond in the sum of Rs.2,00,000/- (rupees two lac) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial court.
SA/S-13/L Bail granted.