Pakistan Case LawSaeed Chandio Versus State
This matter concerns a pre-arrest bail application filed by the applicant, Saeed Chandio, in connection with FIR No. 86 of 2025 registered at Police Station Mehar for offences under sections 337-F(iv), 337-F(vi), 114, 504, and 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the applicant was entitled to pre-arrest bail given the nature of the injuries and the circumstances of the case. The Court held that the ten-day delay in lodging the FIR, which remained unexplained, combined with the fact that the injuries were on non-vital parts of the body and did not exceed the prohibitory clause of section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, warranted the grant of bail. Furthermore, the Court noted that the co-accused, the husband of the injured, had already been granted bail, suggesting the involvement stemmed from a matrimonial dispute. Consequently, the Court confirmed the interim pre-arrest bail. The Court affirmed the principle that where the prosecution fails to explain an inordinate delay in FIR registration and the alleged offence does not fall within the prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C., the applicant is entitled to pre-arrest bail.
- Does an unexplained ten-day delay in lodging an FIR constitute a ground for granting pre-arrest bail?
- Is an offence punishable with seven years imprisonment considered to be within the prohibitory clause of section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Can the grant of bail to a co-accused in a matrimonial dispute be a relevant factor for the court when considering the bail application of another accused?
Order
Muhammad Saleem Jessar, J .--- Through instant bail application, applicant Saeed son of Umeed Ali Chandio, seeks pre arrest bail in Crime No.86 of 2025 registered at Police Station Mehar, for offence punishable under sections 337-F(iv), 337-F(vi), 114, 504, 34, P.P.C.
2.The applicant filed Crl. Bail Application before the Court below which after due notice and hearing the parties was declined by way of order dated 03.04.2025, passed by Ilnd Additional Sessions Judge, Mehar.
3.The case has been challaned which is now pending for trial before the Court of Civil Judge/JM-III, Mehar (Re- The State v. Nooral Chandio and others). Learned counsel places on record true copy of case diary dated 17.04.2025 under the cover of his statement dated 26.05.2025, taken on record.
4.Since the facts of the prosecution case are already mentioned in the FIR as well as order passed by the Court below therefore there is no need to reproduce the same.
5.Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the FIR is delayed for about 10 days and no plausible explanation has been furnished by the prosecution. He further submits the applicant and the complainant are brother-in-law and sister-in-law inter se and due to certain matrimonial affairs the case has been registered against him hence submits that in view of their relationship the chances for reconciliation are opened hence by granting this application bail may be confirmed so that they may be in a position to settle their dispute amicably.
6.Learned Addl. P. G opposes the bail plea on the ground that though per FIR the Section applied is 337-F(iv) carrying five years punishment; however, per final Medico Legal Certificate, the injured sustained injuries which has been declared by MLO to be Jarh Ghayr Jaifah Munaqillah punishable under section 337-F(vi), P.P.C carrying punishment of seven years, therefore, the applicant is not entitled for the extra ordinary relief in shape of pre arrest bail.
7.Mr. Muhammad Ali Kandhro, learned counsel for the complainant by adopting arguments of learned Addl. P. G opposes the bail application and submit that the applicant being brother-in-law of the complainant has caused severe injury to her and she being lady could not resist and such type of incident are increasing day by day in the society. He; however, admits that co-accused who is husband of injured Chandni namely Nooral has also been granted bail by the Court below.
8.Heard arguments of learned counsel for the applicant, learned counsel for the complainant and learned Addl. P.G for the State and perused the material made available before me on record with their assistance.
9.Admittedly, the FIR is delayed for about 10 days for which no plausible explanation has been furnished by the prosecution for such an inordinate delay, besides, the injury allegedly sustained by the injured is on her non vital part of the body, which carries punishment of seven years and it does not exceed limit of prohibition contained under section 497, Cr.P.C. The brother of accused Nooral who is husband of injured has been bailed out which is sufficient to hold that he was involved in this case due to matrimonial dispute. In the circumstances and in view of above factual position on record, the basic ingredients for grant of pre arrest bail as has been laid down by learned apex Court in case of Rana Muhammad Arshad v. Muhammad Rafique and another (PLD 2009 SC 427) are fully applicable and attracted in this case. The upshot of the above discussion is the applicant has made out a good prima facie case for his admission to pre arrest bail. Consequently, the bail application is hereby allowed. Interim bail granted to the applicant on 14.04.2025 is hereby confirmed on the same terms and conditions. The applicant present is directed to continue his appearance before the trial Court till final decision of the case.
JK/S-15/Sindh Bail confirmed.
Judges on this bench
- Muhammad Saleem Jessar457 judgments