ARSHAD ALI vs THE STATE
The petitioner, Arshad Ali, sought post-arrest bail in a case registered under Sections 457, 380, and 511 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, concerning an alleged attempted theft. The prosecution alleged the petitioner was caught red-handed in the complainant's house on 4-12-1998, yet the record indicated the petitioner was not arrested until 13-2-1999. The petitioner argued that he was a minor at the time of the incident and that the delayed arrest contradicted the prosecution's claim of him being caught on the spot. The State conceded that no recovery, including the alleged weapon (Churri), had been effected from the petitioner. The Court held that the significant delay between the alleged occurrence and the arrest, coupled with the lack of recovery of any incriminating material, cast doubt on the prosecution's narrative. Consequently, the Court determined that the petitioner's case warranted further inquiry and granted post-arrest bail, emphasizing that the circumstances surrounding the arrest and the absence of recovered evidence favored the petitioner's release pending trial.
- Does the failure to recover the alleged weapon of offense constitute grounds for further inquiry in a bail application?
- Can a significant delay between the alleged occurrence and the date of arrest undermine the prosecution's claim of the accused being caught red-handed?
- Is a case of further inquiry established when the police investigation fails to corroborate the complainant's initial narrative regarding the circumstances of the arrest?
- Section 457, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 380, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 511, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
' The petitioner, Arshad Ali, is seeking post arrest bail in case F.I.R. No,818, dated 4-12-1993, registered at Police Station Sadar, Kamonki, District Gujarnwala, for the offences under sections 457/380/511, P.P.C., at the instance of complainant, Nazir Ahmed, for an occurrence of the previous night. The prosecution case is that on 4-12-1998 the petitioner armed with 'Churri' entered in the house of the complainant for committing theft. He was caught red-handed at the spot and locked-up in the room and on the next morning the case was registered against the petitioner. The F.I.R. Also narrates that during the sucuffle the accucsed-petitioner suffered mina injuries.
2. The investigation is complete and challan has been submitted in Court. The petitioner's application for the grant of post arrest bail has been dismissed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Gujranwala, on 7-4-1999.
3. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the State and seen record.
4. According to the record the petitioner was arrested on 13-2-1999.
5. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner suffered injuries at the hands of the complainant and his arrest on 3-2-1999 also shows that he was not apprehended at the spot and he is a minor as according to the Birth Register entry, duly produced before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, his date of birth is 10-3-1984. Learned counsel for the State has opposed the contention but has conceded that no recovery has been effected from the petitioner and even the knife with which the petitioner is alleged to have been caught red-handed has not been recovered.
6. The petitioner's arrest on 13-2-1999 and not on the day when he was allegedly caught red- handed shows that initially the police did not believe the prosecution story as narrated by the complainant and in fact the police itself got the petitioner medically examined on 14-1-1999 and yet he was not arrested. This fact, coupled with the fact that no recovery including Churri has been effected from the petitioner, makes it a case of further enquiry. The application is, therefore, allowed and the petitioner is granted bail subject to his furnishing bail bond in the sum of Rs,50,000 with one surety in the like amount.