FAZAL HUSSAIN AND 3 OTHERS vs The STATE
This appeal arose from a petition for bail in a cross-case involving allegations under Section 307 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The petitioners asserted that their first information report (FIR) regarding the death of their companion was registered first, whereas the complainant's cross-FIR was lodged approximately twenty-four hours later when the investigating officer arrived at the scene. The core legal question was whether the appellants were entitled to the confirmation of interim bail given the delayed cross-FIR, the occurrence of a fatality solely on the appellants' side, and the unresolved question of aggression. The Supreme Court of Pakistan accepted the appeal and confirmed the interim bail. The Court held that the significant delay in lodging the cross-FIR, the fact that a fatality occurred only on the appellants' side, and the failure to commence inquiry proceedings despite the lapse of nearly a year justified the confirmation of bail, leaving the determination of the aggressor party to the trial court.
- Whether a delay of twenty-four hours in lodging a cross-FIR, explained by allegations of being surrounded by the opposing party, is a relevant factor in determining a plea for bail?
- Can bail be granted or confirmed where there is a fatality on one side and only non-fatal injuries on the other, and the question of which party was the aggressor remains undetermined?
- Does an inordinate delay in commencing inquiry or trial proceedings constitute a valid ground for confirming interim bail in a cross-case?
- Section 307, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
1. ANWARUL HAQ, J.---Cross crises ate pending between the parties. On the side of the petitioners,, a first information, report was lodged on the 25th of December 1974, regarding the death of one Said Rasul whereas the complainant Muhammad Khan who has appealed in person before us, made his report the next day on the 26th ofDecember 1974, under section 307, P. P. C., when the Investigating Officer arrived at the spot in connection with the earlier F. I. R. Lodged by the petitioners. Muhammad Khan alleged. That the petitioners hail injured three members of his side, namely, Sarfraz Khan, Rasul Khan and Zamurrad Khan. The learned Additional sessions Judge, Campbell far, allowed bail to some members of the opposing factions. His orders were challenged by the parties before the High Court, but they were maintained bar a learned Judge by his or4er doted 21-7-1975.
2. After hearing the parties we have decided to convert this petition into an appeal and to dispose, it of accordingly.
3. We find that the allegations against the appellants were not made until about 24 hours after the alleged, incident, when the Investigating Officer bird come to site in connection with the F. I. R.
4. Registered on behalf of the appellants relating to, the death of their companion Said Rasul. The first informant Muhammad Khan tried, to explain this delay by saying that he and his companions were surround in the village by the appellants and, therefore, be could not make the necessary report on the 25th of December 1974. We do not wish to comment on the merits of the submission but the fact remains that the information against the appellants was considerably delayed. We also find that there has been one fatal casualty on the side of the appellants, whereas on the opposite side no such unfortunate consequences ensured. The question as to which party was the aggressor has still to bit determined. However; even the inquiry proceedings have not yet commenced in spice of the lapse - of nearly one year since the incident.
5. Considering all these circumstances, we would confirm the order of interim bail made in favour of the appellants by is Count on the l0th of October 1975. The appeal is accepted accordingly.
Cited by 2 cases
- ALLAH WASAYO vs THE STATE 1981 P Cr. L J 453
- Haji REHMATULLAH AND Another vs THE STATE- 1979 P Cr. L J 36