ABDUL JABBAR vs THE STATE
The petitioner sought post-arrest bail in connection with an F.I.R. registered under sections 337-F(iii), 337-F(i), 337-L(ii), and 452 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, following allegations of house trespass and assault. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to the concession of bail given the nature of the alleged offences and the circumstances of the case. The petitioner argued that there was an unexplained five-day delay in lodging the F.I.R. and that the offences charged did not fall within the prohibitory clause of the relevant bail statute. The Court, without expressing a final opinion on the merits of the case, held that the petitioner was entitled to bail because the offences charged did not fall within the prohibitory clause of section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. Consequently, the Court granted bail subject to the furnishing of bail bonds in the sum of Rs. 20,000 with one surety to the satisfaction of the trial Court.
- Does an offence that does not fall within the prohibitory clause of section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 entitle an accused to the concession of bail?
- Is a five-day delay in lodging an F.I.R. a relevant factor for consideration in a bail application?
- Section 337-F(iii), Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 337-F(i), Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 337-L(ii), Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 452, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
' The petitioner was arrested on 5-7-1999 in connection with case F.I.R. No,273, dated 1-7-1999 registered under section 337 F(iii)/337-F(i)/337-L(ii)/452, P.P.C., at P.S. Qabula Sharif, District Pakpattan.
2. According to the complainant, le was away from home from some days and on his return he was told that in the night between 24/25 of June, 1999, the accused after scaling the wall attempted to persuade his daughter to commit adultery and on her refusal, gave her severe beating with a Sota.
3. Parties have been heard.
4 It is stated that no explanation for five days' delay in lodging of F.I.R., has come forth and that the offences charged do not fall within the prohibitory clause.
4. Learned counsel for the State, however, resists the prayer for concession of bail and in that regard refers to findings recorded by the Additional Sessions Judge, Arifwala while refusing bail application of the present petitioner.
5. On consideration of the facts and without expressing by himself on the merits of the case I am of the view that the petitioner is entitled to concession of bail. As pointed out by the learned counsel the offences charged do not fall within the prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C.
6. Accordingly the accused shall be released subject to his furnishing of bail bonds in the some of Rs,20,000 (Twenty Thousand rupees only) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court.