ABID and another vs STATE
This matter concerns a post-arrest bail application filed by two petitioners accused of robbery under Section 392 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal questions involved whether the prosecution had established a prima facie case given the 12-day delay in reporting the incident, the absence of the petitioners' identities in the FIR, and the questionable nature of the recovery evidence. The Court held that the prosecution's case suffered from significant evidentiary gaps, particularly regarding the identification of the accused and the lack of independent witnesses for the alleged recoveries. Furthermore, the Court noted that the petitioners had been incarcerated for over 11 months without the commencement of the trial, and the investigating agency no longer required their custody following the submission of the challan. Consequently, the Court granted bail to the petitioners, emphasizing that prolonged pre-trial detention without progress in the trial, coupled with weak prosecution evidence, entitles an accused to the concession of bail.
- Does a 12-day delay in reporting an incident, combined with the absence of the accused's identity in the FIR, constitute grounds for granting bail?
- Is an accused entitled to bail when the trial has not commenced after 11 months of incarceration and the investigation is complete?
- Can bail be granted when the recovery of stolen items is not supported by independent witnesses from the vicinity?
- Section 392, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
' Petitioners having been arrested in the case registered vide F.I.R. No.141 of 19-3-1999 under section 392, P.P.C. Police Station B Division, Kasur alleging robbing of the complainant of Rs,4,000 cash I.D.
Card, wrist-watch and registration book of the within mentioned motorbike he was riding enroute to his place of abode about 9-00 p.m. Within immediate vicinity of the shrine of Barat Shah by two youthful offenders at pistol point on 7-3-1999 of which the petitioners were suspected further the wrist-watch and copy of the registration book of the complainant's motorbike could be identified by Muhammad Aslam and Muhammad Siddique have sought bail.
2. Contending belated reporting of the incident for 12 days after preliminary investigation without spelling out any basis for suspecting the petitioners to be the culprits particulars of whose identity have not been divulged in the F.I.R. Specially visualized in thelight of the fact that since the cited witnesses are only reported to be in a position to identity his wristwatch and the registration book of the motorbike which by no stretch of imagination furthers the prosecution case qua the petitioner's identity; further had that been so there was nothing in their way not to strip off the complainant of the motorbike as well; the alleged recovery of registration book and cash being not vouched by any private person from the vicinity is amenable to doubt thus, a case of no evidence and with the submission of challan are no more required by the Investigating Agency on which count they have already suffered more than 11 months' internment and with the submission of challan are no more required by the Investigating Agency trial whereof till date has not commenced.
3. Which has been opposed by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State reiterating the prosecution story without dislodging the contentions urged upon instruction imparted by the police official in attendance equipped with the record.
4. Persuaded whereby the petitioners are allowed bail upon furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs,50,000 each with the sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court.